Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Regidrago is unhealthy and should be suspected because it has a distinct lack of real counters. Even Fairy-types have to run specific sets to avoid cheese from Regidrago's arsenal. Choice Band or Weakness Policy boosted Earthquake, Thunder Fang, Giga Impact, Dragon Dance, Reflect, and Light Screen alongside a Dragon's Maw STAB allows Regidrago to flip almost any check or counter while maintaining its core matchups. I struggle to find any non-Fairy type (does Scarf PR Meowscarada count?) that consistently beats all Regidrago sets.
The decision not to suspect Regidrago during the recent council vote highlights a concerning disconnect between the council and the community. This is setting a dangerous precedent that risks diminishing community engagement and motivation over time. As council members, it is crucial to vote with a perspective that prioritizes the community's input—specifically through DNS/S (Do Not Suspect/Suspect) rather than DNB/B (Do Not Ban/Ban). I strongly believe the vote reflected more of a Ban/DNB approach.
The community has shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, as evidenced by posts on this thread and in the OTR (with a 12-4 vote in favor of suspect, 2 out of the were 4 council members). Given this, it is important that the community receives transparent reasoning behind the decisions made. Specifically, it would be helpful to know who voted DNS, along with the rationale for their decision to go against the majority of community sentiment.
Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion. Such a comment is concerning, as it undermines the principles of collaboration and accountability that should guide the council’s actions. It is essential for council members to listen to and engage with the community, as their feedback is critical in making informed decisions that reflect the broader player base.
The OTR thread and vote itself happened because of the community's input, but whether we vote for Suspect or Do Not Suspect on a certain Pokemon should not be a given simply based on the fact that some people were loudly requesting a Regidrago suspect. I'll highlight:
This is not a roompoll, this is not a survey, this is not a poll, and that's what some people got wrong about the OTR thread. Posts with "Yeah I want a suspect on Regidrago" are only meaningful to a certain extent. I will only speak for myself, but my outlook on Regidrago this whole time was based around this statement in the Tiering Policy Framework
Overall Goal and Purpose of Tiering Policy:
I.) To create a metagame that is conducive to the more "skilled" player winning over the less "skilled" player a majority of the time.
II.) To ensure that both our ladder and tournament crowds are catered to regarding I.)
III.) To ensure that actions are taken with appropriate and complete justification.
In my personal opinion, a Regidrago suspect was not appropriately or completely justified.
I made my post in OTR thread 2 days in (12 days before the OTR deadline) that stated specifically that the justification for drago ban was not nearly sufficient to warrant metagame action, as it was mostly based on "I feel this" or "I think that" with no real analysis or proof or overall strong attempt at demonstrating the unhealthiness on drago. The posts that followed were:
Short non-conclusive pro ban post by DreamPrince (who is not really a qualified member of the playerbase and also showcased false information such as corviknight losing to specs drago)
Short dnb post by bo_bobson27 (while technically pro suspect I don't agree with the line of reasoning of "enough people want it", you either think the pokemon is broken enough to be suspected or not, you shouldn't cave in to peer pressure)
Short do not suspect post by bern
elo bandit post talking about reflect and light screen (what)
on the fence post by lost heros, leaning towards suspect/ban, with some statistical analysis about wc usage by type which ended up being inconclusive when compared to usage by type of prior tours
short non-conclusive dnb post by lumi
banter between tom numbers and various users
lost heros argument for a retest (the prior regidrago test was not a factor in the dns vote)
neomon completely neutral post on replay analysis and tiering policy
To reiterate, after making it abundantly clear that the current posts in the OTR thread were not enough basis to argue for a suspect (and as a reminder, the side attempting to change the status quo HAS to bring forward appropriate justification) not one singular eloquent post attempting to justify how regidrago deserved to be suspected/banned has happened. I don't know how you ever wanted me to change my mind.
This was a tongue-in-cheek joke, obviously we care. The reality of the fact is that suspects do not get decided via raising of hands, and that saying you want something to be suspected is not enough for a suspect to actually happen.
Council does not exist as a means of transforming a bunch of vocal posts into action, Council exists to make sure action take is completely justified. Regidrago wasn't, or at least that's what 50% of the Council thought.
The OTR thread and vote itself happened because of the community's input, but whether we vote for Suspect or Do Not Suspect on a certain Pokemon should not be a given simply based on the fact that some people were loudly requesting a Regidrago suspect. I'll highlight:
This is not a roompoll, this is not a survey, this is not a poll, and that's what some people got wrong about the OTR thread. Posts with "Yeah I want a suspect on Regidrago" are only meaningful to a certain extent. I will only speak for myself, but my outlook on Regidrago this whole time was based around this statement in the Tiering Policy Framework
There seems to be a clear disconnect here. The OTR was ineffective, to put it bluntly—it essentially mirrored this thread and ultimately achieved nothing after the majority voiced their concerns. Does the Council believe the community will remain engaged and take the OTR seriously after this experience? If the Council views itself as the final authority, will the community still feel motivated to participate in discussions or voice their opinions, especially if it’s not about an obvious, broken Pokémon? This situation risks marginalizing controversial topics and could lead to a decreased interest in future discussions.
Council does not exist as a means of transforming a bunch of vocal posts into action, Council exists to make sure action take is completely justified. Regidrago wasn't, or at least that's what 50% of the Council thought.
This is a tricky stance to take. What justifies the Council’s decision to act, especially when it concerns a high-ranked Pokémon that has been a focal point for months, coupled with recent discussions and complaints overwhelmingly in favor of a suspect test? Shutting down the Regidrago suspect feels dismissive of the community's voice, which can come across as elitist. The Council’s role is to guide new users, helping them focus on the Pokémon itself rather than individual moves, and to prevent loud, impulsive requests for Pokémon like Walking Wake or Corviknight to be suspected. The Council is meant to lead the conversation, fostering a more structured and thoughtful discussion rather than allowing random, chaotic discussion. It seems that in this case, the Council might have struggled to balance responding to community concerns and forcing their own decisions, as shown by the unexpected introduction of the Iron Crown discussion and the blocking of the Regidrago suspect.
If the next survey gauges the community’s willingness to suspect Regidrago, will the Council block it again, or will they proceed with it? If they plan to move forward, why was this particular one blocked? It’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind this decision. Or will Regidrago be excluded from the survey entirely, with the justification that “we’ve already gone through it”? Whether the potential Regidrago suspect ultimately results in a ban or a DNB, and whether it would be ethically appropriate to resuspect it in a few months if it isn't banned, isn’t the central issue right now. The real issue is straightforward: the community is in favor of a Regidrago suspect, so the Council should listen and give the community the suspect test they’ve requested.
The decision not to suspect Regidrago during the recent council vote highlights a concerning disconnect between the council and the community. This is setting a dangerous precedent that risks diminishing community engagement and motivation over time. As council members, it is crucial to vote with a perspective that prioritizes the community's input—specifically through DNS/S (Do Not Suspect/Suspect) rather than DNB/B (Do Not Ban/Ban). I strongly believe the vote reflected more of a Ban/DNB approach.
The community has shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, as evidenced by posts on this thread and in the OTR (with a 12-4 vote in favor of suspect, 2 out of the were 4 council members). Given this, it is important that the community receives transparent reasoning behind the decisions made. Specifically, it would be helpful to know who voted DNS, along with the rationale for their decision to go against the majority of community sentiment.
Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion. Such a comment is concerning, as it undermines the principles of collaboration and accountability that should guide the council’s actions. It is essential for council members to listen to and engage with the community, as their feedback is critical in making informed decisions that reflect the broader player base.
I think we are massively overstating the "disconnect" between the council and the community.
The community by and large has NOT shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, and this has been a consistent lie told by very vocal people who want Regidrago gone.
And yet! The pro-Drago ban crowd continues to say "it's what the community wants", DESPITE many community members coming out and speaking against it repeatedly, or are we ignoring posts like this one and this one? It's gotten so bad that people who argue that Drago is fine, with very good points sometimes, still feel the need to qualify their posts and say "well it's what the community wants so I guess we have too..." (see bo's post above or Lumii's post here).
Don't get me wrong. I think a. Regidrago deserved a re-test, b. should probably be banned, and c. a majority of people probably agree with me. However, I do not think the council is actively twirling their mustaches and saying "screw the will of the people hahahhahahahah". Quite frankly, Regidrago is a hard pokemon to talk about. It's so incredibly linear, and its counters so naturally fit on teams regardless of Regidrago's presence that if you don't already think Regidrago should be banned, it's hard to be convinced of that.
The truth of the matter is, despite their limited number, Fairies are a naturally powerful type in the tier and find their way on teams regardless, and Steels, if slightly less consistent, do as well. It's why arguments against Drago can be so murky, and often transition back and forth between "well Regidrago is restrictive in teambuilder" to "oh well Regidrago causes 50/50s in preview" to "well Regidrago is so strong it does both" to "well Regidrago isn't that strong because of it's obvious checks but..."
AND THAT'S WHY THE OTR HAPPENED. To get proper argumentation out there, and truly talk about this pokemon in very specific ways. And to everyone's credit. I think both the community and council engaged with the OTR in good faith and properly. Some arguments and some posts were just bad, but I think everyone acknowledged that this is a hard discussion to have and did their best to talk about it, despite many people already talking about it before.
Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.
I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.
Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.
I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.
The community by and large has NOT shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, and this has been a consistent lie told by very vocal people who want Regidrago gone.
I don’t believe referencing two surveys conducted during the era of Gouging Fire and Ogerpon-Hearthflame as solid evidence against the idea of overwhelming support is entirely valid, as they reflect a different metagame. Back then, Regidrago didn’t warrant priority over those mentioned Pokémon, as both overshadowed it. The metagame has shifted, and we can’t directly compare past priorities with the present ones. While pro-Drago suspect support was not overwhelmingly strong at the time, it still existed. However, it’s clear that the support has become overwhelming post-Gouging Fire ban, as indicated by the posts targeting Drago in that thread after the ban.
However! Despite the first survey still, council still decided to suspect Regidrago. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/dragon-soul-regidrago-suspect.3744257/, which despite its flaws did result in a DNB with only 54% of voters voting ban (accounting for mishlef's abstain into his wanted vote of DNB).
This demonstrates that the council was more lenient in allowing the community to propose suspects in the past. However, it doesn't reflect the concerns or dynamics of today’s metagame
And yet! The pro-Drago ban crowd continues to say "it's what the community wants", DESPITE many community members coming out and speaking against it repeatedly, or are we ignoring posts like this one and this one? It's gotten so bad that people who argue that Drago is fine, with very good points sometimes, still feel the need to qualify their posts and say "well it's what the community wants so I guess we have too..." (see bo's post above or Lumii's post here).
Don't get me wrong. I think a. Regidrago deserved a re-test, b. should probably be banned, and c. a majority of people probably agree with me. However, I do not think the council is actively twirling their mustaches and saying "screw the will of the people hahahhahahahah". Quite frankly, Regidrago is a hard pokemon to talk about. It's so incredibly linear, and its counters so naturally fit on teams regardless of Regidrago's presence that if you don't already think Regidrago should be banned, it's hard to be convinced of that.
The truth of the matter is, despite their limited number, Fairies are a naturally powerful type in the tier and find their way on teams regardless, and Steels, if slightly less consistent, do as well. It's why arguments against Drago can be so murky, and often transition back and forth between "well Regidrago is restrictive in teambuilder" to "oh well Regidrago causes 50/50s in preview" to "well Regidrago is so strong it does both" to "well Regidrago isn't that strong because of it's obvious checks but..."
AND THAT'S WHY THE OTR HAPPENED. To get proper argumentation out there, and truly talk about this pokemon in very specific ways. And to everyone's credit. I think both the community and council engaged with the OTR in good faith and properly. Some arguments and some posts were just bad, but I think everyone acknowledged that this is a hard discussion to have and did their best to talk about it, despite many people already talking about it before.
I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.
Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.
In fact, that survey post itself states "With this, 2 Pokémon stand out: Gouging Fire and Regidrago are perceived by the average player and highlighted players to be in need of moderate to severe tiering action.". This clearly shows what the attitudes of players were.
Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did. I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.
I agree that lost heroes misread the post (we all make mistakes) but is it not true that after this survey results posted by Drip there was a suspect following this. Whatever people’s complaints were about the suspect test and its flaws the suspect test did happen and could someone not make the same argument used against many people who were disappointed about past suspect results and say “if you cared enough about it you should have gotten reqs”. I feel like pretending that there’s an overwhelming support for Regidrago suspect and the council is ignoring the community also ignores the posts made by many people who were against Regidrago ban. Lastly I want to air on the side of caution about using the numbers as proof of anything, let me give one such example. Let’s say 54% of the community was in favor of a regidrago ban, and let’s say 54% vote 5 on regidrago and the 46% not in favor of a ban vote 1. The resulting average and median are 3.16 and 5 respectively. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it shows that we should be a bit more cautious about talking using those numbers as justification of much because in my opinion the 1-5 system results in the amplification of pro ban voices, especially without taking into account that what as 2 or a 3 for one person may drastically be different than what those are for a different person.
Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.
I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.
3.31 < 3.35. Small, but not wrong. And when we're talking about scales from 1-5. 0.04 is not tiny, and would imply that there are slightly more 4 and 5 votes being removed than there are 1 and 2 votes, which is significant when there are already more 4 and 5 votes than there are 1 and 2.
I do think the playerbase supports a suspect. I do not think that the playerbase is overwhelming 100 to 1 for a suspect.
I don’t believe referencing two surveys conducted during the era of Gouging Fire and Ogerpon-Hearthflame as solid evidence against the idea of overwhelming support is entirely valid, as they reflect a different metagame. Back then, Regidrago didn’t warrant priority over those mentioned Pokémon, as both overshadowed it. The metagame has shifted, and we can’t directly compare past priorities with the present ones. While pro-Drago suspect support was not overwhelmingly strong at the time, it still existed. However, it’s clear that the support has become overwhelming post-Gouging Fire ban, as indicated by the posts targeting Drago in that thread after the ban.
This demonstrates that the council was more lenient in allowing the community to propose suspects in the past. However, it doesn't reflect the concerns or dynamics of today’s metagame
I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.
I misread the colors, so the action taken does make more sense, but nonetheless still ended in a narrow DNB margin.
I don't see how council members holding opinions is a conflict of interest, unless you are to say my opinions are also a conflict of interest, despite thinking Drago should've been suspected? These people are informed and skilled players who have been trusted to not just act with the community in mind, but to also serve the metagame to their own knowledge base.
I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.
I have issues with this framing, one it seems that council members are being held up to two different contradictory standards the first being one of transparency in which case one would believe they should post and voice their opinions. The second is that of acting solely as barometers for the community and treating it like a poll, which in turn you believe means they shouldn’t express their stance on the OTR. I think this is the wrong approach as I value transparency first and foremost. Additionally, I think it’s laughably contradictory that you don’t hold this level of critique to the two council members who made posts in favor of a Regidrago suspect.
I don't see how council members holding opinions is a conflict of interest, unless you are to say my opinions are also a conflict of interest, despite thinking Drago should've been suspected?
I think it’s laughably contradictory that you don’t hold this level of critique to the two council members who made posts in favor of a Regidrago suspect.
If the community was leaning to DNS and 4/6 council member forced the Pokemon to go to a suspect test then they'd be hold accountable to the same level. It's just a theory since 1) It's harder to get something suspected against the will of people, 2) It's even harder to get something banned if that happens.
+ I never said they can't be transparent and state their opinion. They're free to state their opinion and change the mind of people in a potential S/DNS discussion or in a potential B/DNB discussion but three people shouldn't go against the majority of the community and force their opinion on them.
I agree that lost heroes misread the post (we all make mistakes) but is it not true that after this survey results posted by Drip there was a suspect following this.
I am confused about this first line and need elaboration. I did not talk about Gouging regarding Drip's post nor claim that this is the case. Not me hallucinating the word "Gouging"
Whatever people’s complaints were about the suspect test and its flaws the suspect test did happen and could someone not make the same argument used against many people who were disappointed about past suspect results and say “if you cared enough about it you should have gotten reqs”. I feel like pretending that there’s an overwhelming support for Regidrago suspect and the council is ignoring the community also ignores the posts made by many people who were against Regidrago ban.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the DnB voters nor claiming "overwhelming" support for banning Drago - only a majority. This is simply backed up by the polls that Lost Heros linked, where Regidrago is consistently ranked as needing action. In the first poll, a whopping 89.2% supported action on Drago at some point. In the second poll, Regidrago puts up similar numbers to the banned and not-missed Gouging.
Lastly I want to air on the side of caution about using the numbers as proof of anything, let me give one such example. Let’s say 54% of the community was in favor of a regidrago ban, and let’s say 54% vote 5 on regidrago and the 46% not in favor of a ban vote 1. The resulting average and median are 3.16 and 5 respectively. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it shows that we should be a bit more cautious about talking using those numbers as justification of much because in my opinion the 1-5 system results in the amplification of pro ban voices, especially without taking into account that what as 2 or a 3 for one person may drastically be different than what those are for a different person.
I think if we go down the road of "numbers can't be trusted" then concretely arguing for anything at all becomes impossible. While indeed the difference between each number is subjective, I can't help but feel like trying to disregard numbers from poll results simply comes from wanting to disregard the results themselves. I made a point earlier about the difference in mean vs the non-difference in median, and I can fully see how that can be quibbled with. But I just don't like the idea of not trusting any numbers.
If the community was leaning to DNS and 4/6 council member forced the Pokemon to go to a suspect test then they'd be hold accountable to the same level. It's just a theory since 1) It's harder to get something suspected against the will of people, 2) It's even harder to get something banned if that happens.
+ I never said they can't be transparent and state their opinion. They're free to state their opinion and change the mind of people in a potential S/DNS discussion or in a potential B/DNB discussion but three people shouldn't go against the majority of the community and force their opinion on them.
The onus of a regidrago suspect to happen is for the ban regidrago side to make convincing arguments, this is definitionally the case. Do you believe that a simple majority(50% +1) (let’s say a poll) would be sufficient justification for a suspect test to occur? If you acknowledge that they are free to change the minds of a potential S/DNS discussion then why do you want them to not take into consideration the posts people make and use them to determine whether they think a suspect test is warranted or not? OTR function(tmk) is not to act as a poll otherwise one liners and the like wouldn’t be deleted because if it was a straightforward poll then these one liners in support of something would be equally valid to the longer posts which formulate their stance with arguments
3.31 < 3.35. Small, but not wrong. And when we're talking about scales from 1-5. 0.04 is not tiny, and would imply that there are slightly more 4 and 5 votes being removed than there are 1 and 2 votes, which is significant when there are already more 4 and 5 votes than there are 1 and 2.
0.04 is 100% tiny. In a poll with 69 non-qualified and 26 qualified voters, this difference could come from a single 3 being changed to a 2. Maybe two 3s.
Two people seem to have gotten the impression that I said there was huge, widesweeping support for a Drago suspect. I did not mean to imply this, so sorry if I did. I refer to myself to respond to this:
Me to Mishelf:
I don't think anyone is ignoring the DnB voters nor claiming "overwhelming" support for banning Drago - only a majority. This is simply backed up by the polls that Lost Heros linked, where Regidrago is consistently ranked as needing action. In the first poll, a whopping 89.2% supported action on Drago at some point. In the second poll, Regidrago puts up similar numbers to the banned and not-missed Gouging.
Can we just have an odd number of voting council members to avoid this controversial situation of pure 50/50 in the future?
"What if someone abstains?", you ask – well, what if they don't?)
" Yeah b-b-but 4/7 is still not 60%! Ha!" – technically right. Is a 60% needed ALSO for 7-member council votes? It's a supermajority, maybe we can apply common sense?
PS: let's re-direct all our rage towards Pecharunt next.
I don’t think this outcome can be labeled controversial because when there is a straight 50/50 the correct course of action is the status quo. Therefore as the status quo is for Regidrago to not have a suspect so this is working exactly as it should be. You can argue it’s controversial to have a tiering council but that’s a separate conversation and a separate argument than the one you’re making.
The onus of a regidrago suspect to happen is for the ban regidrago side to make convincing arguments, this is definitionally the case. Do you believe that a simple majority(50% +1) (let’s say a poll) would be sufficient justification for a suspect test to occur? If you acknowledge that they are free to change the minds of a potential S/DNS discussion then why do you want them to not take into consideration the posts people make and use them to determine whether they think a suspect test is warranted or not? OTR function(tmk) is not to act as a poll otherwise one liners and the like wouldn’t be deleted because if it was a straightforward poll then these one liners in support of something would be equally valid to the longer posts which formulate their stance with arguments
I don't get the convincing arguments part, if the arguments weren't good then the majority of the community wouldn't be siding with the suspect side. I don't think the community will rally behind a non suspect worthy Pokemon by providing bad arguments.
I believe the whole OTR>Council Voting system is flawed. As we've just witnessed both of these can be contradictory. There's no reason to have an OTR if the council is still going to vote against the community, might as well just have read that thread and vote. OTR is redundant and useless if it's not going to serve its true purpose which is to rally all voices in one thread. If that's not OTR objective then the whole system should change.
I don’t think this outcome can be labeled controversial because when there is a straight 50/50 the correct course of action is the status quo. Therefore as the status quo is for Regidrago to not have a suspect so this is working exactly as it should be. You can argue it’s controversial to have a tiering council but that’s a separate conversation and a separate argument than the one you’re making.
Legality and controversy are not mutually exclusive. A law or policy can be legally valid, yet still spark intense public debate, disagreement, and criticism.
I don't get the convincing arguments part, if the arguments weren't good then the majority of the community wouldn't be siding with the suspect side. I don't think the community will rally behind a non suspect worthy Pokemon by providing bad arguments.
If the arguments were made using faulty evidence then yes the arguments can be unconvincing even if a lot of people believe it. Just because someone said corv loses to specs drago does not mean it is true and if that’s one of the reasons a person uses as justification for a position then of course it’s possible a community can rally behind a non suspect worthy mon by providing bad arguments.
Legality and controversy are not mutually exclusive. A law or policy can be legally valid, yet still spark intense public debate, disagreement, and criticism.
Yes, but this one isn’t, unless you believe the onus and responsibility of whether Regidrago gets suspected or not should be on people wanting to not ban Regidrago instead of the people who want to ban Regidrago. If you believe that onus of proof is on the Ban Regidrago crowd you must also believe that if there is a 50/50 you have to go with the do not ban crowd. Do you believe this to be true?
DreamPrince is actually a two-time sv 1v1 reqs qualifier and suspect voter.
I do not like it when my council members arbitrarily decide that someone's comment is less worthy of consideration, and I think that this is a clear signal of how the council views the community.
I don't get the convincing arguments part, if the arguments weren't good then the majority of the community wouldn't be siding with the suspect side. I don't think the community will rally behind a non suspect worthy Pokemon by providing bad arguments.
I believe the whole OTR>Council Voting system is flawed. As we've just witnessed both of these can be contradictory. There's no reason to have an OTR if the council is still going to vote against the community, might as well just have read that thread and vote. OTR is redundant and useless if it's not going to serve its true purpose which is to rally all voices in one thread. If that's not OTR objective then the whole system should change.
OTR was a tool for the council to gather more community input, and that it did. What I gathered from OTR was that there was no adequate justification for a suspect, so I acted accordingly by voting do not suspect.
I stated clearly and openly what I would've liked to see for me to vote for a suspect, as I was somewhat on the fence at the time, and that did not happen. OTR served its purpose in letting me know that either there was no solid argument for the pro-ban side to make, or that the feelings towards regidrago were not strong enough for that argument to come to fruition.
Frankly speaking, drago got suspected into a DNB, sentiments towards its ban were mixed in the OTR thread, and the council (representatives of the community) voted do not suspect. There is no such thing as an overwhelming push towards its ban
Also, as a member of the council I speak for myself, not for the whole council, so DEG as a member of the community please speak for yourself, not for the entire community. If this sentiment is as you say, then the community would have/will follow suit on its own.
DreamPrince is actually a two-time sv 1v1 reqs qualifier and suspect voter.
I do not like it when my council members arbitrarily decide that someone's comment is less worthy of consideration, and I think that this is a clear signal of how the council views the community.
yea I fucked up, I apologize DreamPrince I didn't mean it this way towards you, my main sentiment was directed towards the contents of the post which on top of being only 5 lines short contained misinformation such as corvi losing to drago and also the statement that drago doesnt have any hard counters besides fairies, which are just false. I did not mean to carry out my general dismissal of his post as a specific dismissal of him as a player/person. so again i apologize, i know he's a qualified contributor
In 1v1 there is no objective measure of whether something is unhealthy or not, the closest thing you can get is lots of subjective opinions on whether it’s healthy or not.
The community found something unhealthy in the survey, the council voted do not suspect. Increase council size or give community a way to contribute beyond trying to influence council members through posts.
I feel like lots of council members use the cop-out excuse blaming people for not making posts as to why they voted a certain way. “If you want it gone, post about it etc etc”
From experience as an ex council member, I was never really influenced at all by other people’s posts, meta discussion or otr. I still used that excuse though!
Can we also stop treating scarlet violet 1v1 metagame discussion like an ace attorney court case. This is just making problems where everything is already fine (been there done that).
I figure it's about time I write a post on the matter considering the way things have gone. I don't know exactly where to start so bear with me, but I'll be trying my best to clear up as much as I can; addressing concerns, clearing up misconceptions, and talking about how the process can be improved in the future.
First and foremost, I'm disappointed in the way this news was received. Some of our community members claim that this outcry was to be expected, and sure I also expected a portion of the community to be dissatisfied when the vote ended the way it did, but being dissatisfied does not justify resorting to personal attacks, passive-aggression, and sarcastic remarks. This doesn't just go for the above discussion, but also discourse in the discord server, 1v1 room, and in private circles. This includes people who argue pro-suspect and anti-suspect, between authority figures, council members, and regular users. I'm not just telling you this as a moderator, I'm telling you this as someone trying to be a decent person on the internet: If you want to feel listened to, give people a reason to want to listen, and the first step to that is treating them with some basic respect.
My role is somewhat special in the sense that I didn't get a vote myself and am not directly responsible for the outcome, but as council leader I feel responsible for managing the process and more importantly the community's expectations. A lot of what happened here wasn't just a result of council members voting the way they did, but also the result of me not giving everyone the stable process and clarity I could've. I'm sorry this situation didn't turn out according to your expectations, I could've done more to make things clear had I proceeded with more patience, structure, and caution.
With that said, I'm going to try to address as many of the complaints and misconceptions I've seen floating around as possible. First things first, I've seen a lot of concerns about the vote ending in a tie. There's heaps of precedent across both 1v1 and smogon for councils having an even amount of members (as a matter of fact Ubers and UU currently have 8 members each), and this hasn't led to problems for us in the past. There is no difference between "even number doesn't reach majority" and "uneven number doesn't reach majority" unless the community's expectations about the meaning of a tie are wrong. Let me make it clear: in the case of ties in votes, the winning side will always be the status quo unless a different tiebreaker is explicitly in place, which is not the case here.
Additionally, at least one person was confused about this ogerpon-hearthflame vote resulting in a suspect despite being a 50/50 ban vote. At first glance I can understand why this looks like an opposite outcome for an identical situation, but relevant context here is that this Oger-H vote was not a suspect vote. The suspect was already decided at this point and due to the timing potentially disrupting PL, the vote went between "ban and re-suspect" and "suspect immediately." In this case, just like for Regidrago, the option deviating from status quo (default is suspect) didn't get a greater than 50% support, and thus Oger-H got suspect tested and not quickbanned.
Next, I want to talk about the notion that this vote was treated by individual council members as "DNB vs Ban" and not "DNS vs Sus." The story being portrayed here is that it's impossible for half the council to decide not to want to suspect test Regidrago when it's so clearly supported in the rest of the community. I won't pretend I know exactly what the community wants in extensive detail, but I do know that a portion of the council was strongly weighing the fact that this is a resuspect. I've publicly said this as well: The case for banning drago despite a suspect already having been done just needs to be stronger than it was before. Although I personally probably would've voted to suspect drago, I am incredibly on the fence and don't blame anyone who believes the case was not strong enough.
Putting this in a hide tag because it's arguing semantics and subjective interpretation of statistics and people's opinions, this is not constructive to the general discussion and I'd much rather focus on things we can actually verifiably change to work towards a better future, but I want to have it said
Council has a responsibility to the community, to the metagame, and to smogon's general tiering policy. This means that the community is just one factor in making decisions, and if you believe council should be a perfect reflection of the community's wishes then you're misunderstanding the role of the council. After all, that would make a council vote a formality, and we might as well decide everything by public poll. So let's look at the community's actual wishes in the most valid and objective way possible (please read the sarcasm): A room poll. Thankfully a lovely staff member made such a roompoll after the conclusion of OTR, so we have such data to use for our little thought experiment. The result of this poll was that 65% of the voters want to suspect Regidrago, and 35% did not (spread across a few options because Iron Crown was also factored). Considering council is weighing more than just the direct wishes of the community, I honestly don't think a 15% deviation from the expected voting outcome is all that surprising or excessive.
I know these numbers are useless because roompolls don't paint a good picture due to the excessively low barrier of entry to voting, but the point here is that the wishes of the community are easy to misrepresent. Hell, the last drago suspect was supposedly "what the community wanted" and yet it didn't end up banned because there wasn't enough community support.
Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion. Such a comment is concerning, as it undermines the principles of collaboration and accountability that should guide the council’s actions. It is essential for council members to listen to and engage with the community, as their feedback is critical in making informed decisions that reflect the broader player base.
If you have records of this happening, please reach out to me about it so I can take action. Pretty much all of 1v1 council has been very vocal during the whole process of this OTR, answering public questions, posting on OTR and in discord's metagame discussion channel, addressing points made by the community and attempting to argue both in favour of and against a regidrago suspect test in good faith. If there is a council member undermining these efforts by wholeheartedly making statements like this, they should be held accountable. That being said, as it stands this statement only serves to draw conclusions and set an inflammatory tone to vilify the council as a whole because of the supposed words of an individual. I've said this earlier in my post and it was far from directed just at you or this comment, but I want everyone to please mind your tone. If you or anyone else has pressing concerns about the integrity of council especially if you have evidence to back it up reach out to someone who can do something about it, I urge everyone to do this, I am more than happy to personally address your concerns if you approach me in good faith.
Lastly, I want to reassure everyone who thinks the votes are not public. We are not hiding who voted what, and have in fact mentioned it on discord more than once. I didn't think it was important to include something like that in the OTR closing post, but since some people want it in writing on smogon here it is:
bern: Do Not Suspect
delemon: Do Not Suspect
lost heros: Suspect
Murm: Suspect
neomon: Suspect
RADU: Do Not Suspect
I'll be keeping an eye out, considering the clamours for publishing these votes have come from the same people who are passionately unhappy with the voting outcome, I will not have any tolerance for directing dissatisfaction at individual council members who didn't vote according to your wishes. If you wish to talk to them, feel free to reach out and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain to you why they voted the way they did, but if you do so with hostility I will protect them as a moderator.
What's next?
I would genuinely like to hear if there are notable improvements to be made to the entire process that we just went through. I've seen a lot of conflicting feedback that is incredibly hard to work with, ranging from "surveys are useless" to "we should've done a survey." Please engage in serious discussion about this so we can make 1v1 the best it can be. I heard a few suggestions about tiebreakers, and am willing to look into them provided they fit into tiering policy or precedent elsewhere. Even if we make a change to tiebreakers though, we won't be retroactively applying them to this vote.
As we start talking about how to move forward, it's important to mention the upcoming post-worldcup survey that will most likely be released next week. We (council) would love your input on how to decide which Pokémon should be mentioned on the survey, ideally not cluttering the metagame discussion thread with it but instead reaching out in the 1v1 room or on discord. I would personally like to aim to keep the pool of Pokémon relatively small, to get focused input from the community on a set of key issues, but I know opinions on this differ so do reach out.
Also, the aforementioned roompoll (if you read my tangent) showed almost 50% support for an Iron Crown suspect test, so despite it being overshadowed by Regidrago on OTR, now might not be a bad time to start giving your thoughts about it in an organised way.
