1.1 Swagger as a move has historical precedent in being banned in the DOU metagame for reasons concerning the risk/reward value it possesses. Historically the relationship that defined this value was in the player-to-player interaction it could cause. Many players, including the DOU Council members, believed Swagger to be a move which initiated a “forced 50-50” situation in battle scenarios where one player had a demonstrably clear path to victory that could then be rendered useless by virtue of Swagger mechanics. It should also be noted that similar reasoning was applied towards the banning of Swagger in various other Smogon metagames outside of DOU.
1.2 It should also be noted that previous iterations of Swagger bans focused extensively on the prevalence of “Prankster Pokemon”. In the DOU metagame this was a discussion that largely concerned itself with the impact of Thundurus-I variants that made concurrent use of Thunder Wave and Swagger. Though by no means was Thundurus-I the only Pokemon that could make use of this particular combination of moves, it was the most prominent with Thundurus-I itself being a Pokemon that largely cycled between Tiers 1 and 1.5 in the Viability rankings. The viability of Thundurus-I in the previous iteration of a Swagger ban is of particular importance when concerning the discussion of a newer Swagger ban. A newer suspect would have to meet, at the very least, a similar level of frequency in the move itself within the dynamics of the metagame. If the move does not prove itself to be as frequently utilized, then the interactions that Swagger creates would then have to be proven to fall into a similar degree of effectiveness as previous Council votes, namely the quick banning of Eevium Z in early SM and the banning of Gravity + Sleep in mid-ORAS, both of which saw limited usage but were deemed too effective to have reasonable counter-play.
1.3 In the public suspect testing of Shaymin-S in ORAS, one of the primary areas of concern that I had looked into when giving my judgement was the issue of “hax” or “luck” — and the mechanisms in which players can mitigate their impacts in the course of a game. In that instance, I had determined that Shaymin-S when isolated from all other elements of the metagame was not necessarily broken, but possessed the right combination of elements to have a skewed risk:reward that heavily favours the player using Shaymin-S. In instances where the reward for utilizing an otherwise balanced move vastly outweighs any potential risk then that calls into question whether or not that particular element should be observed more in-depth. However, in the Shaymin-S suspect that particular risk:reward analysis observed interactions that were, as in the previous iteration of Swagger, largely player to player.
1.4 In the closed council votes regarding Eevium Z and Azumarill/Jirachi I discussed the nature of non-player-to-player interactions, and to what degree they should be regarded as unbalanced and balanced. In both instances I argued that Eevium Z and Azumarill operated in isolation — they would operate in the same fashion regardless of context. I also argued that both offered a substantial reward for minimal risk — though Eevium offered a very high initial opportunity cost to use as it begins with essentially playing a 5-on-6. Eevium Z also offered one more dynamic that is of particular importance to this vote, which is that Eevium Z possessed unique qualities that did not exist in similar instances prior to it — Eevium Z could not be stopped by the conventional counterplay to Baton Pass chains, Taunt.
1.5 Another particular issue to consider is the context of this vote. The primary application in previous generations and iterations of a Swagger ban focused on the player-to-player interaction. Player A would use Swagger on Player Bʼs Pokemon in order to create an “artificial 50/50” that would not occur otherwise. This argument concerns issues of risk:reward in instances where Player B now takes on increased risk for a reward that was not deliberately factored for — or, as was articulated by SamVGC in his vote, provided Player A with a non-skill based win condition. The current dynamic that is being explored is the usage of Swagger by Player A on another of Player Aʼs Pokemon — typically referred to as “Self-Swag”. In previous iterations, “Self-Swag” was used as a particular dynamic that justified keeping Swagger legal in competitive play, which makes this a much more contentious potential ban. The context in particular is also interesting. What is being argued as broken is a Tapu Fini with Swagger, and often Heal Pulse as well. This offers 2 unique qualities that did not exist in previous iterations of Swagger suspects. Previous iterations did not include a Pokemon which offered status immunity via its ability as Tapu Fini does, as previous iterations required the use of a Lum Berry to heal the confusion, or the use of Safeguard. As well, previous iterations did not offer a reliable method of healing, which Tapu Fini does.
1.6 The last particular is the issue of Smogon banning convention — banning the whole Pokemon as opposed to parts of it. The rhetoric surrounding this particular case is interesting as numerous positions have been articulated to some degree of positive or negative response. Banning Misty Terrain — in effect banning Tapu Fini has been mentioned, as has an outright Tapu Fini ban, banning the Swagger (and Heal Pulse) set, and the course we are exploring, which is a simple Swagger ban. Banning Swagger in SM DOU is the cleanest particular route as it does involve removing the element as a whole, rather than particular parts of it. However, and this is particularly important context, in the current DOU metagame the only notable Swagger user is Tapu Fini. From a simple observation of suspect rhetoric it could be reasonable argued that this course is a roundabout way of banning a part of Tapu Fini, rather than the Pokemon as a whole. However, the previous iteration that occurred in ORAS DOU established the precedent that Swagger could be banned in isolation, even in instances where there exists only a single prominent user of the move. What is missing in the contemporary issue however is that in the previous iteration there still existed a few other niche users of the move, such as Sableye, that are missing in the current metagame. This means that the particular unique qualities that Tapu Fini possesses when using Swagger will then have to be weighed up against the lack of niche Swagger users. Though it should be noted that again, this method of analysis does not dissuade against the argument that this particular vote is a roundabout means towards banning a part of Tapu Fini.
1.7 As this Council vote is seeking to explore removing an element from the metagame, rather than to include one, it should be proven that key qualities of the element create an unhealthy dynamic in metagame interaction. In particular, the qualities I will be examining are whether the frequency of the interaction occurs often enough that it could be argued as “centralizing” to the point of unhealthy in teambuilding, or failing the necessary frequency, provides enough of a reward for minimal risk that its presence in a game shifts the play options of the opposing player in a way that it concentrates on a particular moment on the game, rather than on their own particular win-conditions. What this means is that the player has to play in such a fashion that it prevents, or at least mitigates, a particular instance in the game from happening, regardless of whether or not it does happen, in order to avoid a subsequent series of turns that provide a near unavoidable loss — frequently referred to as “flow-charted”.
