So in Vert's
surrender on the idea of a Tera Blast suspect they raise an interesting point. The player base has a sense that there's
something worth banning, but there's really not consensus on any single Pokémon.
If there's a good number of Pokémon who are right at that broken threshold, but the community can't come to an actionable consensus for an outright ban, is this the time when we explore an alternative tiering method? Not Kokoloko, but Whac-A-Mole. I'm thinking something like a reverse suspect, where by community decision one Pokémon is banned for a period of time, reintroduced for a period of time, and then qualified voters say if they liked it being gone.
A limitation of the traditional suspect test is that we can't play the tier without the suspected Pokémon while we're deliberating whether or not it's banworthy. In a situation like we're in now, where no one can agree on what's broken, the prospect of a Pokémon being permanently banned becomes too contentious for some to consider. But the reverse suspect test presents the opportunity to say, okay, we will remove Raging Bolt, for example, from the tier for
x number of weeks. At the end of the duration, Raging Bolt will be returned to the tier for
x number of weeks, and then a vote will be held on whether or not its absence actually made the tier better.
The details of this process would definitely need to be ironed out--like, I don't have a sense for what durations of temporary removal & returns would be enough for proper consideration, or how we determine the order of Pokémon we test. But I think the Whac-A-Mole method, temporarily removing + reintroducing one Pokémon, would give the community a clearer sense of the suspect's impact on the tier--and hopefully an easier time with Pokémon that they personally don't find broken being put up for a suspect test.