np: UU Stage 6 - No Surprises

[FlareBlitz]

I can't say that I am unhappy about this outcome. Time to make good on my word and create a team based around simipour!

[SStats]

Thanks for posting. As I've said before, I don't see how Sand limits LO sweepers any more than Snorlax limits special sweepers, the existence of Choice Scarf limits boosting sweepers, Stealth Rock and Spikes limit balanced teams, etc, but I do appreciate the fact that a relatively timely decision was reached. I've never played a sand team on ladder, but the principles behind this ban disturb me enough that I'll probably switch back to OU.

With that said, though, it bears asking: when will the B2W2 changes be added to the metagame? As soon as the games are released?

[Antar*]

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

Sand Stream is now offically banned from UU

...

I have already sent Antar a PM requesting the removal of Sand Stream from the ladder, so that should be done soon.

As per Smogon policy (badged-only link), this tier update will not take effect until July 1, since this is the last month before a usage-based tier update.

I would also like to ask if there are any objections to removing Hippowdon from BL. I somehow doubt it's seriously broken with its released ability of Sand Force.

[kokoloko*]

Originally Posted by Fat SStats

the principles behind this ban disturb me enough that I'll probably switch back to OU.

Or you could just play both

:)

Originally Posted by Fat SStats

With that said, though, it bears asking: when will the B2W2 changes be added to the metagame? As soon as the games are released?

The PO developers will take x amount of time implementing the changes into the code once the games are released, and the Smogon people will then take y amount of time switching to the new client. We'll be playing BW2 in x + y time.

Originally Posted by Fat Antar

As per Smogon policy (badged-only link), this tier update will not take effect until July 1, since this is the last month before a usage-based tier update.

I would also like to ask if there are any objections to removing Hippowdon from BL. I somehow doubt it's seriously broken with its released ability of Sand Force.

boo I forgot about that... this is why I wanted to get this done sooner :(

As for Sand Stream-less Hippowdon, I personally think it would be a nice addition to UU, dunno how Jabba wants to handle it, though.

[phoopes]

I'd like to point out this Smogon article about categorizing tiering bans. It says that Smogon bans things for two reasons, a Type A ban or a Type B ban. Type A is for reducing the metagame's skill dependency. Type B is over-centralization. Now, we can all agree that Sand Stream by itself doesn't reduce the metagame's skill dependency; It's not like Sand Stream results in more luck becoming involved. That would be the reason for banning Sand Veil. Sand Veil is the one that brings luck into the game. The reason for Sand is general being banned would be Type B, or over-centralization. The definition of which (according to the article I linked to) is...

Originally Posted by Fat Chou Toshio

Anyway, these bans are made in order to prevent the game from centralizing around a mere handful of pokemon (we can note that 4th Gen OU has double the "OU" pokemon of 4th Gen Ubers). These bans almost always have to do with power.

Now that would be all fine and dandy with me, except that Sand doesn't make the metagame lack centralization, nor is it overpowered. In fact, your senators even said some stuff along these lines while reasoning why Sand should be banned.

Originally Posted by Fat Ginku

After thinking about Sand for quite some time now, I've ultimately come to the conclusion that while it may not be "too much" to handle in the sense that it's close to unbeatable

Originally Posted by Fat PsYch071c

Though sand has not quite held the same stranglehold on the UU tier as Deoxys-D or Hail

Originally Posted by Fat PsYch071c

Sand may not be as popular as many other playstyles

Originally Posted by Fat PsYch071c

Notice I did not say that sand is “broken” or “overpowered”. It is relatively easy to check, and it forces the opponent to waste their first teamslot on a baby hippopotamus.

Originally Posted by Fat SJCrew

Sand itself, by contrast, is a competitive strategy that competitive players use, planning around their frankly obvious strengths and weaknesses. It's noticeably dwarfed in capabilities by past weather suspects that have set the bar for what crosses the line in UU, and its only real abuser is scarcely debated and universally agreed upon as fair when scrutinized. On top of that, it isn't even common enough to make grounds for centralization, which lends even less credence to the idea that it causes undue stress on UU players.

Overall, I don't think anyone is losing their shit over the best revenge killer in UU when they can nonchalantly put one or more of of Rhyperior, Cobalion, Aggron, Brozong, Gligar, or others on their team to mitigate this problem. Failing that, they can also take advantage of bad predictions with dangerous checks like Chandelure or Trick Room NP Cofagrigus, who are much harder to counter than any Stoutland.

Originally Posted by Fat Heysup

OK, maybe I'm the only one who this has happened to but Sand teams are getting rarer and rarer. I haven't had a specific problem against them. Not even close to it, actually.

Sand has done nothing to stop me from using LO, Synthesis (even on the same sweeper), and the other moves you listed. It's not super common anymore, and if you find yourself spamming Synthesis or Morning Sun against a Sandstorm team you're not playing very effectively against it.

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

The primary reason why a ban on Sand Stream is on the table is not because the playstyle is overpowering/broken

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

None of these factors seem to be crucial to the metagame, and hence not worth banning sand to undo

So, every single one of the senators said something about sand either not be overpowered or not being overcentralized except for FlareBlitz, who said that "I personally would find a sand-less metagame more fun." Not anything about being OP or OC, but more fun. That's not the reason why Smogon bans things (according to the article I linked to, at least). If the voters themselves don't feel that sand is OP or OC, then it shouldn't be banned. So in my mind, banning Sand Stream does not make sense at all.

I am in favor, however, of banning Sand Stream + Sand Veil. That brings luck into the game, when it really shouldn't be allowed according to the Smogon banning policy. It brings luck into the game, and can hurt the skilled players that deserve to be at the top of the ladder. That has an actual, legitimate reason to be banned, unlike Sand Stream as evidenced above with what the senators said. Also, a combo ban like this has worked really well with Drizzle + Swift Swim (though that was for being overpowered, not for luck reasons), so why not ban that if you're going to ban anything?

Based on the banning policy, it makes no sense to ban Sand Stream. Especially when you didn't have all seven members of your council to vote, which I'm a little bit more than irate about. I respect Jabba, but he's not on the council. Upstart is, so I feel that you should have waited for him, even if this process was taking a long time already. I see no reason for Sand Stream to be banned without all members of the council voting, especially because sand is neither overpowered nor overcentralized, the only reasons why it should be banned in the first place.

EDIT: Done now.


Whole basis of argument out of date. D'oh!

[PsYch071c]

Originally Posted by Fat ChouToshio

Also, because I know it's going to come up, the above are just categories-- they do not clearly define why a thing is being banned. How much hax does it have to caused to get under Type A? How much usage/dominance does have to achieve to get under Type B?

Those questions are not for philosophy or terminology to define. That's up to the players, and their opinions-- their votes. By making bans, we are engineering a "better game," but what makes a game better is subjective. The only way to answer that, is with people's opinions. That's why we have the voting system.

@phoopies You missed the most crucial part, where he states that every ban is subjective, and we should aim to create a better metagame with every ban. I believed that banning sand would result in a better metagame, as I stated numerous times in my paragraph, so I voted to ban.

Edit: And according to Heysup this article is not even relevant anymore, so it is pointless to use as an argument against our choice.

As for Antar, I would completely support this drop as well. Could the same thing happen with Abomasnow as well, once Unnerve gets released?

[Heysup]

Originally Posted by Fat phoopes

I'd like to point out this Smogon article about categorizing tiering bans. It says that the two types of bans Smogon. Type A is reducing the metagame's skill dependency. Type B is over-centralization. Now, we can all agree that Sand doesn't reduce the metagame's skill dependency; It's not like Sand results in more luck becoming involved. That would be the reason for just banning Sand Veil. The reason for Sand is general being banned would be Type B, or over-centralization. The definition of which (according to the article I linked to) is...

I know you're not finished but it may be pointless to do so. Additionally, I disagreed with most of the senate but I'm still going to defend their decision.

The article you linked is quite outdated - we've had a newer policy since then (though, the article sort of moves in this direction already as the post above mine points out). Our new policy is to ban "what we (the senators + community) think will be best for the metagame" in a subjective way. I personally think like this: pure competitiveness = validity = meaning = best, so you could argue I'm as objective as possible, but still subjective at the root. However, I'm one in a decent sized senate which decides this and we all have our different subjective reasoning

The only weight your argument had was that article, and it's not relevant right now save a few points listed above that actually hinder your case.

[FlareBlitz]

Originally Posted by Fat SStats

I've never played a sand team on ladder, but the principles behind this ban disturb me enough that I'll probably switch back to OU.

The "principles behind this ban" are present and enforced in every tier on Smogon. Sleep clause / species clause / evasion clause / ohko clause don't exist because those things are broken. They exist because the metagame is much more fun with them. That's the same guiding principle behind the senate's ban here (although you will note that I personally dissented because I didn't think the community was entirely convinced of our reasoning). I support the ban fully on grounds of principle.

Originally Posted by Fat SStats

With that said, though, it bears asking: when will the B2W2 changes be added to the metagame? As soon as the games are released?

I think Aesoft will get the changes coded far sooner in pokemon showdown, if you want to play that new metagame as soon as possible. Don't quote me on that though.

Originally Posted by Fat Antar

I would also like to ask if there are any objections to removing Hippowdon from BL. I somehow doubt it's seriously broken with its released ability of Sand Force.

I fully support this.

Originally Posted by Fat phoopes

Now that would be all fine and dandy with me, except that Sand doesn't make the metagame lack centralization, nor is it overpowered. In fact, your senators even said some stuff along these lines while reasoning why Sand should be banned.

I'm going to post part of my PM to the other senators so that you guys can kind of understand where we're coming from here:

"I suppose, ultimately, we need to think back to why we want to change things in this metagame. It's because the metagame isn't as fun as it could be. Now, that's a pretty inflammatory sentence and it could be strawmanned with rebuttals like "well I think togekiss makes the metagame less fun so let's ban that", but ultimately that's the reason we're even having this conversation - we want to make things more fun for our playerbase. Given that, this is what we need to decide: Will our playerbase have more fun with sand stream in the metagame but with sand veil gone, or will it have more fun with the playstyle as a whole gone?

We know that quite a few players enjoy using sand stream, so we know that banning it will have an immediate negative impact on them. At the same time, we know that the viability of sand as a playstyle causes less diversity in the metagame, and limits the viability of fast, frail sweepers that are vulnerable to residual damage (like Azelf, Weavile, etc). Note that this was one of the reasons we banned Hail. And finally, we know that the missing a key move against Gligar due to factors entirely outside a player's control (i.e. missing a 100% accuracy move chosen specifically for its reliability) is uncompetitive and has no place in this (or any, honestly) metagame, so we can't exactly do nothing either.

With all that said...I mentioned earlier that removing sand as a whole from the metagame would make me, as a player, happier. As a senate member, I can't come up with a reason for why it's "broken" or "imbalanced" or "whatever"; I don't think it's any of those things simply because I tend to win against sand teams. But I do know that building my team such that it can win against sand teams prevents me from exploring options that I would otherwise be interested in exploring, such Simipour (don't laugh).

I primarily play UU because the lack of weather-oriented domination means that a lot more viable niches open up in this metagame compared to OU and Ubers, and so it would be my personal preference not to see any perma-weather in the tier. That said, I can certainly see the validity in the opinions of those who would disagree with me. I do think though, at a minimum, we need to ban Sand Veil. I'm almost tempted to propose doing both just because hard-banning sand veil instead of soft-banning it by hard-banning sand stream will set a much stronger precedent...but that does seem much too superfluous."

[phoopes]

Welp, that article was the whole basis for my reasoning. Didn't know it was out of date. I still feel that Sand Stream + Sand Veil should be the thing being banned, not just Sand Stream. Personally, I find the metagame more fun with sand involved, bar Sand Veil. Like kokoloko, I've also played PO's UU, and I prefer Smogon's with sand over PO's without it. If ya'll think that's what's best for the metagame, then you're entitled to that opinion. But I'm still a little ticked that the decision was made without Upstart voting. Like I said before, I respect Jabba and all, but he's not the one on the council. Upstart is, so I think you guys should have waited for him, despite that meaning this process would have taken longer.

[SJCrew]

Combo bans set a terrible precedent for tiering by removing optimal conditions in which a Pokemon or field effect is most effective rather than evaluating them by the sum of its parts. The objective in question isn't even practical enough for gain to justify such a blatant breach in policy.

Do keep in mind that Drizzle/Swim was meant to be an exception. We have not extended these exceptions thusfar into UU weather effects and it would be beneficial for the sake of our own tiering policy to keep it that way.

Also, supporting Hippowdon in UU. Without Stoutland, he's demoted to the rank of "a really good physical wall", something UU is dying for at the moment. Good catch, Antar, I wasn't even thinking about that.

[Pocket]

So I guess we are clausing everything that we don't enjoy facing now, for the sake of a "fun" metagame. A few years ago, this would have been viewed as a noob thing to do.

Competitive and fun are two different things. Amateurs soccer players play intramural soccer "for fun." They are not players who are in division 1 teams facing other college teams, where the stakes and skill requirement are higher.

I understand that we are playing Pokemon for fun, but you are crossing the line where competitiveness is being drastically reduced for the sake of fun. Reading your explanations to ban Sand Veil / Sandstream makes this all too clear.

The most unnerving aspect of these paragraphs are the sense of entitlement of "how things should be working."

"Substitute CM Raikou, LO Azelf, Morning Sun Arcanine should be working much better than it is working now! Sandstream is not allowing them to bring out their full potential!"

"An Ice Beam should be hitting that Gligar with 20% more evasion!"

The flaws in such reasoning is obvious. By trying to improve the performance of certain monsters, you have unjustifiably reduced the effectiveness of other Pokemon. What about Cacturne's potential? Stoutland? This screams favoritism to me. If you want to play a weatherless metagame, play RU / NU or play PO's UU.

The titanic discussion and the aftermath on Evasion Clause brought up by the OU council should have settled the issue on Sand Veil. Evasion Clause has been unaltered all the way till the fourth generation - yes, Sand Veil and Brightpowder existed in 3rd and 4th Generation. Why are we distorting the long-standing definition of Evasion Clause all of a sudden?

20% chance of evasion is as "uncompetitive" as a 30% flinch by Rock Slide or a 30% burn by Scald, etc. Ice Beam SHOULD NOT be hitting a Sand Veil target 100% of the time, since it has an accuracy of Hydro Pump. A perfect accuracy Thunder and Hurricane is not a justifiable case to ban Drizzle back then (these moves are "meant to" hit 70% of the time!), a less accurate Ice Beam is no reason to ban Sand Veil, let alone Sandstream!

Evasion miss is no different from other hax. People have argued that you have to use a move to activate other hax and some other arbitrary reasoning. Did you realize that you have to waste an entire Poke slot on a SHITTY HIPPOPOTAS just to have the effect of Sand Veil? I am pretty sure Sand Veil is a much more handicapped hax than the other ones, and the fact that people are fussing over it is disheartening.

I know many have you dismissed Smogon's "outdated" philosophy of banning what's "broken," and embraced the "I will change the metagame the way I find to be fun." Yes, tiering is subjective. However, "what is broken," is a much more objective measurement, than "what I want." Because I certainly do not want others to decide what I want in a metagame. The new changes are certainly not fun for players who wanted to make use of Stoutland or a sand-based stall team.

UU seems to be the only metagame that have suffered from "clausing everything I detest" syndrome; all the other tiers practice much more responsible and rational tiering behavior. I am glad that this problem is contained within UU, but at the same time, it sucks to see one of my favorite metagames to fall victim to this.

This issue stems from the oligarchial tiering system produced from the council system, where there is a disproportionate amount of "liberal" ban supporters as opposed to the "conservative" ban supporters. Sure, the council system provides much faster results, but arguably the former democratic system produced more agreeable results. Obviously this is not a thread to discuss about revising the tiering process - if you take anything from this post, I hope you guys stray away from "what is fun for me" and start questioning "is this threat so unmanageable in UU that it must be removed."

PS: For the record, I feel that all this "sandstorm hate" came from the overbearing offensive presence of Stoutland (is a Sandstorm team without Stoutland scary to you?) Sand Veil and passive damage are NOT sufficient reasons to ban Sandstorm.

Why not ban Stoutland and call it a day?

PPS: I am sorry for my aggressive tone. It was not my intention at all to offend anyone, but I did not know any other way to express my thoughts on this matter. I still mean everything I said, though, and I hope you take this into consideration.

[kokoloko*]

First of all, please don't double post in my forum. You're a moderator yourself and hence should know better.

Secondly, I would appreciate if you get off the high horse you evidently are on. I'm having a very hard time looking at your post as anything other than a claim of superiority; partly due to the way it's worded and partly because of the authoritarian tone you're using.

This doesn't even begin to touch upon the fact that the bases upon which you are making your claims are a complete falsehood.

A miss due to evasion boosts is not the same as a miss from naturally inaccurate moves such as Hydro Pump, nor is it the same as a burn from Scald. Why? The former cannot be controlled while the latter, at least in theory, can. You can play around Scald by using Natural Cure Pokemon or Heal Bell users. You can avoid misses from Hydro Pump by opting for the more accurate Surf duing teambuilding. These are calculated risks you choose to take. A miss due to Sand Veil is something that is completely out of your control, and as such, equating it to the other scenarios is absurd.

Furthermore, this ban does not compromise the competitiveness of the tier as you seem to think it does. It changes the metagame, yes, but it does not make it any less competitive. Instead of having to prepare for sand teams you now have to prepare for all the threats that will arise from the lack of them. This is still just as competitive. In fact, I would argue that its more competitive, as the diversity of the tier has now increased.

Another thing is the fact that your proposed solution of "why not ban Stoutland and call it a day" is laughable, at best. No one (except maybe jrrrrrr i think) thinks that Stoutland is what was wrong with sand. That would be like me saying "hey lets ban Tentacruel so that Drizzle is no longer overpowered". It shows your inexperience in the tier--something you should have perhaps considered before waltzing in here with that condescending attitude.

For your information, two members of the OU council (and coincidentally senior staff) agreed with this ban. Both Jabba,who acted as the tiebreaker vote and has the exact same view on tiering as the people who voted to ban said, and Aldaron, who said he was much more comfortable with the idea of banning Sand Stream as opposed to Sand Veil because the latter is a part of he former.

Lastly, I really feel as if I should clarify this: this ban was done for what we perceive to be the overall betterment of the metagame, not purely because it's more fun. But even if it was, so fucking what? If you're not playing Pokemon to have fun, you're doing it wrong.

Any further discussion you want to have on the subject should be directed to my inbox. I don't want to clutter this thread with an ultimately pointless argument.

[kokoloko*]

I'm double posting even after I just called someone out on it because this post deserves individual attention.

By pure coincidence, Upstart showed up in #genvuu today. His personal situation isn't exactly sorted out yet, but he said once it is he'll be able to rejoin us and pick up his duties as a Senator, and since we're taking a break from any suspecting until the implementation of BW2 stuff, this works out nicely.

Also, because people tried calling out the ban as 'unsatisfactory' because he didn't vote, here's what he said when I asked him about the ban:

18:57 upstart i do approve of the ban yes

So yeah, Jabba's interference didn't alter the result of the vote.

--------

In other news, Hippowdon will be unbanned come July 1st and fully usable with Sand Force. Luckily for us, there's a Stealth Rock tutor in BW2 so he won't even miss out on that!

That is all.

[Heysup]

Originally Posted by Fat FlareBlitz

"I suppose, ultimately, we need to think back to why we want to change things in this metagame. It's because the metagame isn't as fun as it could be. Now, that's a pretty inflammatory sentence and it could be strawmanned with rebuttals like "well I think togekiss makes the metagame less fun so let's ban that", but ultimately that's the reason we're even having this conversation - we want to make things more fun for our playerbase. Given that, this is what we need to decide: Will our playerbase have more fun with sand stream in the metagame but with sand veil gone, or will it have more fun with the playstyle as a whole gone?

We know that quite a few players enjoy using sand stream, so we know that banning it will have an immediate negative impact on them. At the same time, we know that the viability of sand as a playstyle causes less diversity in the metagame, and limits the viability of fast, frail sweepers that are vulnerable to residual damage (like Azelf, Weavile, etc). Note that this was one of the reasons we banned Hail. And finally, we know that the missing a key move against Gligar due to factors entirely outside a player's control (i.e. missing a 100% accuracy move chosen specifically for its reliability) is uncompetitive and has no place in this (or any, honestly) metagame, so we can't exactly do nothing either.


With all that said...I mentioned earlier that removing sand as a whole from the metagame would make me, as a player, happier. As a senate member, I can't come up with a reason for why it's "broken" or "imbalanced" or "whatever"; I don't think it's any of those things simply because I tend to win against sand teams. But I do know that building my team such that it can win against sand teams prevents me from exploring options that I would otherwise be interested in exploring, such Simipour (don't laugh).

I see his point. I mean it's kind of simple...."why do we think that"....I mean I saw way more opposition of the ban (even before we banned it) than not but yet we (and by we I mean some senators) still voted to ban it.

I think you did vote for Sand Veil but your second paragraph does only apply to Sand Veil and still doesn't justify the SS ban.

And I'm not completely sure what's stopping you from using Semipour already.

Originally Posted by Fat phoopes

Welp, that article was the whole basis for my reasoning. Didn't know it was out of date. I still feel that Sand Stream + Sand Veil should be the thing being banned, not just Sand Stream. Personally, I find the metagame more fun with sand involved, bar Sand Veil. Like kokoloko, I've also played PO's UU, and I prefer Smogon's with sand over PO's without it. If ya'll think that's what's best for the metagame, then you're entitled to that opinion.

It's not a huge deal, you brought up some good points. I actually completely agree with you otherwise, if you were curious.

Originally Posted by Fat SJCrew

Combo bans set a terrible precedent for tiering by removing optimal conditions in which a Pokemon or field effect is most effective rather than evaluating them by the sum of its parts. The objective in question isn't even practical enough for gain to justify such a blatant breach in policy.

Do keep in mind that Drizzle/Swim was meant to be an exception. We have not extended these exceptions thusfar into UU weather effects and it would be beneficial for the sake of our own tiering policy to keep it that way.

Text book slippery slope fallacy. Also, your second point is a great argument against your first point.

Narrow bans are technically encouraged by our policy, by the way. Combo bans are just hyped up to the point where they seem to be in their own league of taboo bans.

Originally Posted by Fat Pocket

Competitive and fun are two different things. Amateurs soccer players play intramural soccer "for fun." They are not players who are in division 1 teams facing other college teams, where the stakes and skill requirement are higher.

I understand that we are playing Pokemon for fun, but you are crossing the line where competitiveness is being drastically reduced for the sake of fun. Reading your explanations to ban Sand Veil / Sandstream makes this all too clear.

<snip>

I know many have you dismissed Smogon's "outdated" philosophy of banning what's "broken," and embraced the "I will change the metagame the way I find to be fun." Yes, tiering is subjective. However, "what is broken," is a much more objective measurement, than "what I want." Because I certainly do not want others to decide what I want in a metagame. The new changes are certainly not fun for players who wanted to make use of Stoutland or a sand-based stall team.

I agree with a lot of your post but this is exactly what I think. If a game has meaning it is more full, more complete, and I care a fuckload more about something like that than something that is just stuff we're doing for minor inconveniences. I also strongly agree with that last paragraph I snipped in there.

However, you should read the discrepancies about the definition of "fun" for certain people that we had earlier in this thread. For example, I had Kokoloko talking about what he thought made the metagame less fun however he was listing purely competitive reasoning. So essentially, call it what you like but this term is definitely not just "for fun" but it had competitiveness in mind right at its very base.

Originally Posted by Fat Pocket

20% chance of evasion is as "uncompetitive" as a 30% flinch by Rock Slide or a 30% burn by Scald, etc. Ice Beam SHOULD NOT be hitting a Sand Veil target 100% of the time, since it has an accuracy of Hydro Pump. A perfect accuracy Thunder and Hurricane is not a justifiable case to ban Drizzle back then (these moves are "meant to" hit 70% of the time!), a less accurate Ice Beam is no reason to ban Sand Veil, let alone Sandstream!

Evasion miss is no different from other hax. People have argued that you have to use a move to activate other hax and some other arbitrary reasoning. Did you realize that you have to waste an entire Poke slot on a SHITTY HIPPOPOTAS just to have the effect of Sand Veil? I am pretty sure Sand Veil is a much more handicapped hax than the other ones, and the fact that people are fussing over it is disheartening.

This however, is all wrong. Kokoloko explained so I'm not going to, but I just wanted to clear up that I see your logic here and it is completely backwards.

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

Furthermore, this ban does not compromise the competitiveness of the tier as you seem to think it does. It changes the metagame, yes, but it does not make it any less competitive. Instead of having to prepare for sand teams you now have to prepare for all the threats that will arise from the lack of them. This is still just as competitive. In fact, I would argue that its more competitive, as the diversity of the tier has now increased.

Lastly, I really feel as if I should clarify this: this ban was done for what we perceive to be the overall betterment of the metagame, not purely because it's more fun. But even if it was, so fucking what? If you're not playing Pokemon to have fun, you're doing it wrong.

I honestly think it's our own fault for flaunting "we're changing the metagame for fun" around (as much as we all deny it, it's what we're doing). The decision at hand did not (well obviously I kind of disagree with this here) make the metagame less competitive because it was still a competitive reason but we are not saying that. We have the responsibility of explaining this and we shouldn't keep up this charade of saying that we aren't using solely competitive reasons to ban something.

Competitive reasoning =/= something is broken, it just means something is being done for the sake of competitiveness in the metagame.

I just want to make sure we understand that people's view of competitiveness effects how much fun they are having. I've said this before but I still don't think you've taken note of

Originally Posted by Fat Kokoloko

For your information, two members of the OU council (and coincidentally senior staff) agreed with this ban. Both Jabba,who acted as the tiebreaker vote and has the exact same view on tiering as the people who voted to ban said, and Aldaron, who said he was much more comfortable with the idea of banning Sand Stream as opposed to Sand Veil because the latter is a part of he former.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this but I kind of take offense to it and I'm sure people without a fancy title would feel even worse. How is this relevant? It isn't. All it does is put some people up on a pedestal.

Originally Posted by Fat Kokoloko

Any further discussion you want to have on the subject should be directed to my inbox. I don't want to clutter this thread with an ultimately pointless argument.

Not sure if that was supposed to be all of us but I typed this out already......I don't think I'm beating any dead horses here anyway.

[Ace Emerald]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, honest question: we banned sand partly because it makes it tougher to use fast frail stuff. imo its easier to change the weather than it is to rapid spin (especially now that Stealth Rocks is back in its full gen V glory), so wouldn't hazards still put a damper on fast and frail? Unless its full on not switching offense, which is pretty hard due to the bulkiness of the metagame. Just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on how fast and frail will actually work out in the metagame.

Also I full heartedly agree with Heysup, for the record.

[phoopes]

I would like a comment on the whole, "making the metagame more fun" thing. If that's going to be the basis on whether something gets banned or not, I'd rather have the whole community decide on that rather than just seven people. Personally, I feel that making the metagame more fun should be left out of all arguments completely on whether something should be banned by the council. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I don't want seven people deciding what is more or less fun than another thing.

I do respect the competitive reasons that you listed, though. Making the metagame more diverse is a good argument for the banning of sand. However, let me play devil's advocate for a minute: by the logic used here, shouldn't Sand Stream have been banned in OU a few months ago instead of Garchomp and Excadrill? If we use precedent, it would have made more sense to ban Stoutland here, since that is considered by many to be the biggest threat in sand. Just like how Garchomp and Excadrill were considered the biggest threats in Sand when they were banned. Keep in mind, I don't support the banning of Stoutland, but it's something to think about.

Anyway, if Upstart has voted for the ban of Sand Stream, I can accept that. Still doesn't make me disagree with it, however. I agree with kokoloko's point about Sand Veil's effects being more luck-based than the effects of other moves, such as Hydro Pump, since you're taking the risk by using low accuracy moves. There's nothing you can do about Sand Veil, which is why I think it shouldn't be allowed. Aldaron said that he's more comfortable banning Sand Stream over Sand Veil because Sand Veil is part of Sand Stream. I feel that Sand Veil is more of a malign tumor, if you will, on the harmless body that is Sand Stream. I think it makes more sense here to ban one of the effects, over banning the cause. However, the council has voted on Sand Stream being banned, so I can accept that, albeit a bit begrudgingly.

[kokoloko*]

I'm not going to reply to the above posts because... well, honestly, I'm lazy and I don't feel like it. I do feel the need, however, to clarify one thing for those of you who want to continue discussing the ban:

The decision will not be reversed any time soon. There is currently a discussion going on behind closed doors about which tiering philosophy Smogon wants to follow. Until that decision is made (don't get your hopes up, it's going to take forever), the ban on sand in UU will stand.

That said, I don't mind the discussion continuing, so long as people don't think that we're going to reverse the decision.

[Iridium]

Originally Posted by Fat phoopes

*snip*

I agree with this man.




Also...

Originally Posted by Fat Pocket

PS: For the record, I feel that all this "sandstorm hate" came from the overbearing offensive presence of Stoutland (is a Sandstorm team without Stoutland scary to you?) Sand Veil and passive damage are NOT sufficient reasons to ban Sandstorm.

Why not ban Stoutland and call it a day?

Yes, a toxic/sand/subroost stalling gligar stalling me out by scoring misses is pretty fearsome

as is that cacturne that has a 4% chance to get in a free SD and sub

stoutland? I don't care about that thing any more than I care about hard-hitting scarfers like darm and heracross. Seriously, it's no different. at all. If you don't have a fire resist, scarf darm will rip you apart. If you don't have a normal resist, sand stoutland will rip you apart.

[SStats]

It seemed like it'd be pointless to debate further, so I wasn't going to post, but then I saw this post, and this line really struck me:

If that's going to be the basis on whether something gets banned or not, I'd rather have the whole community decide on that rather than just seven people.

I had been thinking about this a little too. I guess part of the problem here (the OU switch I mentioned earlier), and I'm sure many of the anti-Sand-ban people will agree, is that I feel ripped off. If Pokemon is really about having fun, then I'd be having *much* more fun if I were part of a direct voting process on what to ban or not ban, instead of having a council decide for me and the entire community.

Back when we had some kind of notion about objectivity in banning (even if it was never really there and everyone was being subjective anyway, even if trying to be objective), the system of having a handful of people vote for ban/anti-ban felt OK, even very reasonable.

But since so many people are saying that "broken" is just as subjective as "fun," and everything is subjective anyway, of course it feels strange having a small group of people still make the decisions. Even if there are competitive reasons there.

I could go on about this in many ways and for many reasons, but there's no point ultimately. The most important thing I could say is that I agree with the quoted poster (as well as, I assume, the poster above) on this point, and I suppose this is my real issue with how the ban went down. Suddenly everyone is saying that it's all subjective anyway, so we might as well do what the playerbase considers fun and what adds diversity...but the playerbase didn't get to vote directly on it.

[DetroitLolcat]

I didn't know we needed a council to tell us what "fun" means. We need a council to tell us what "broken" means. The point of a council is to have experts dictate to us what is, as objectively as possible, what is too overpowering for the UU metagame. A Senator's opinion on what's "broken" is more often more valid than a regular person's opinion on what is "broken" because Senators are experts who know the metagame better than the average person. One person's opinion on "fun", however, is no more valid than the next person's. If we're going to degrade our banning philosophy to a point where 'bs no fun' is perfectly valid reasoning to remove something from a metagame, why not just have an open poll where people can say "i dont like this ban plz" instead of having a council of seven Fun Arbitrators tell us how to enjoy our own metagame. Seems it would make the process much smoother, and there wouldn't be nearly as much backlash.

Secondly, can we stop lying to ourselves when we call a Sand Veil miss "uncontrollable"? There are so many ways to mitigate the effects of a Sand Veil miss it's not even funny. There are moves that never miss (see Aerial Ace, Shock Wave, etc.), there are accuracy-improving items, there are moves that negate the opponent's ability (Gastro Acid, Skill Swap) and there are moves that completely nullify Sandstorm. If you don't like the opponent using Sandstorm, then use the move Sunny Day or Rain Dance or Hail or whatever in order to negate the weather. It seems when auto-weather is involved in something, no matter how pathetically weak the inducer and how little of an effect on the metagame it has, it's automatically deemed "unstoppable" and "out of one's control". How difficult is it to change one move on one Pokemon to counter Sand? (and yes, I mean counter.) And furthermore, there are hundreds of things in Pokemon that are out of a person's control. Evasion gets a bad rap because it's the easiest to whine about. What about Scald burns? That affects way more battles than Sand Veil and has a higher chance of activating. And if 100% Accuracy moves are never supposed to miss, then why did Game Freak specifically make moves that are more accurate than 100 Accuracy moves?

The fact of the matter is that Hippopotas's auto-weather is incredibly difficult to keep up if the opponent is running a weather-changing Pokemon because Hippopotas is very, very weak. It also has a tough time beating Pokemon like Rain Dance Kingdra which can cause massive headaches for Sand teams as a whole.

And since when did "fun" become a legitimate reason to ban something? Last time I checked, we play competitive Pokemon, where competition comes before fun. After reading some of the reasoning posted earlier on both sides of the issue, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people have entirely forgotten what "competitive" means. If you look at the characteristics of a desirable metagame, then you'll see that Sand Veil is NOT uncompetitive.

Also:

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

miss due to evasion boosts is not the same as a miss from naturally inaccurate moves such as Hydro Pump, nor is it the same as a burn from Scald. Why? The former cannot be controlled while the latter, at least in theory, can. You can play around Scald by using Natural Cure Pokemon or Heal Bell users. You can avoid misses from Hydro Pump by opting for the more accurate Surf duing teambuilding.

A miss due to evasion boosts is absolutely the same as a move from naturally inaccurate moves such as Hydro Pump. They both make your move do no damage and they both display the message "Pokemon's attack missed!" on the screen. Not trying to change the weather is absolutely a risk one chooses to take. There is more to weather than auto-weather. I've used dedicated Rain teams before and peaked #1 on the ladder. I've used Rain Dance on Pokemon to counteract Sand, and let me tell you it works almost all the time. You can stop Scald burns through Heal Bell the same way you can stop Sand Veil misses with Rain Dance.

[SJCrew]

Text book slippery slope fallacy. Also, your second point is a great argument against your first point.

Narrow bans are technically encouraged by our policy, by the way. Combo bans are just hyped up to the point where they seem to be in their own league of taboo bans.

Clarification needed.

Combo bans have been brought up in every single suspect discussion subsequent to the Drizzle/Swim ban (more specifically, the weather/ability template). It's not a fallacy if it's happening right in front of our eyes. Right now, it's precedent, and it's already being set and used in two different cases. If the minority voice had their way, we'd be seeing the same thing for Sand and Hail.

The second we admit to a combo ban, I demand we go back and test each and every single Pokemon UU and below with Double Team to see if they're broken. That undue annoyance something like Corsola is going to give you will be the same as any Gligar in the Sand that keeps Toxic stalling your Pokemon due to complete and utter bullshit misses.

[Hooker Punch]

Originally Posted by Fat kokoloko

There is currently a discussion going on behind closed doors about which tiering philosophy Smogon wants to follow. Until that decision is made (don't get your hopes up, it's going to take forever), the ban on sand in UU will stand.

I may be a nobody, but, um, wouldn't it be wise to have something as fundamental to how Smogon works like tiering policy at least somewhat transparent? I mean, I understand not having the masses vote--I was here during the Salamence ban and Raikou ban in Gen 4, and that was a clusterfuck--but that seems like a topic that should at least be visible to the public.

All-in-all, I sorta agree with the other "nobodies" above in saying that this decision, which really came down to a couple people not liking sand, is kinda suspect. It makes sense to have a small minority of best players deciding the metagame when it is assumed that were working towards a theoretically "balanced" metagame. If we aren't doing that, and instead banning based on what we feel is the most "fun", then why not just ask the majority what they think and run with it?

On the topic of the sand ban, I disagree with it in the sense that I personally believe that the metagame with the most viable strategies is the best metagame, and all this ban did in my eyes was remove a viable strategy from the metagame.

I also disagree with it from the perspective of a veteran of other competitive communities--the only communities I've ever really seen that banned things based purely off reasons that amounted to "fun" were the TF2 and Smash Bros communities, and neither of those are truly respected by their particular genres.

[kokoloko*]

I actually agree with you. I've asked a few times to make that discussion at least viewable by the general userbase, but to no avail.

Also, I vow to never use the word "fun" in a suspect discussion again because people misconstrue my meaning every single time. Do me a favor and think of it as "bettering the metagame" from now on, ok?

And before you come back with "but that's subjective!" The way you interpret what is ban-worthy is just as subjective, so don't bother.

[JabbaTheGriffin*]

Oh that's where i recognize you from kokoloko

[Pocket]

SJCrew, Combo bans have been around before Aldaron's Proposal; there's the Mean Look / Spider Web + Perish Song + Sleep Move ban in GSC and also Ingrain Smeargle ban in RSE. Actually, the latter may have come after Aldaron's Proposal, since it was retroactive. There's already a Smash + Pass combo ban in NU. Combo bans are well-integrated into our tiering process, and has come in handy to weed out the root of the problem and nothing more (ie prevented from banning baton pass / shell smash or multiple pokemon). I do not know why you are so caught up in the semantics and fail to see the advantages of utilizing such combo bans when the needs arise.

Combo ban is a useful tool to limit the repercussions that the bans cause. Banning Sandstorm would remove an entire playstyle (mainly harming Stoutland's usage), while banning Sand Veil would be soft-banning Cacturne and Gligar, two mons not even close to being broken (even with Sand Veil activated). If the majority's issue with sand is solely Sand Veil, combo banning Sand Veil & Sandstorm seems the most sensible course of action, at least for a finite period of time to confirm whether Sand itself (in the absence of activated Sand Veil) is stifling the UU metagame or not.