Hogg
grubbing in the ashes
As was discussed in another recent thread, we don’t currently have a public definition of what constitutes a “complex” ban. To paraphrase the immortal words of Justice Potter Stewart, no one wants to put a hard definition on it, but just about everyone seems to think they’ll know it when they see it.
This isn’t an attempt to define the term (despite the clickbait thread title). Instead, I wanted to encourage folks to move away from using the term “complex ban” altogether. I think it’s outdated and not really descriptive or useful anymore.
Instead, I’ll include a quote from a reference document I made for all tier leaders prior to the release of Sword and Shield. This isn’t really tiering policy, but rather a way to look at and talk about potential suspects and bans. I’m not proposing we necessarily turn this into formal policy or anything, but I thought it might make sense to have a place where we can discuss just what terms like this mean.
This isn’t an attempt to define the term (despite the clickbait thread title). Instead, I wanted to encourage folks to move away from using the term “complex ban” altogether. I think it’s outdated and not really descriptive or useful anymore.
Instead, I’ll include a quote from a reference document I made for all tier leaders prior to the release of Sword and Shield. This isn’t really tiering policy, but rather a way to look at and talk about potential suspects and bans. I’m not proposing we necessarily turn this into formal policy or anything, but I thought it might make sense to have a place where we can discuss just what terms like this mean.
Again, not really proposing any specific policy change here, but since the phrase “complex ban” gets tossed around roughly every 30 seconds on this site, I thought it would be good to have this somewhere public, rather than just as part of the guidance to TLs. That said, I’ll leave this topic open in case anyone has any specific questions or concerns.”Excerpt from the Gen 8 Tiering Framework document for tier leaders” said:“COMPLEX” BANS
There have been posts about this in Policy Review, but this is actually a broader conversation I’d like to have among tier leadership. In general, I would like us to move away from referring to “complex bans” as much as possible. I think this term generates more confusion than it resolves. What, exactly, constitutes a complex ban? Is banning Drizzle complex? How about restricting Baton Pass to three users? Or banning both Trick and Shadow Tag on the same Pokemon?
Instead, I’d like us to get in the habit of looking at things in a more granular way:
- Pokemon bans. We all know how these work. They’re straightforward, easy to understand and incorporate, etc. Staraptor is too strong for UU so it is banned. It’s easy to test, easy to resolve. Ideally, the majority of our bans should be Pokemon bans.
- Non-Pokemon bans. Banning abilities, moves or items. In general, non-Pokemon bans are broader and will have a much greater impact than a Pokemon ban, and therefore require more focus and discussion. These typically will need to be looked at from a policy point of view, and if implemented, should likely affect all of the usage-based tiers. Individual lower tiers should almost never institute a non-Pokemon ban, because their limited subset of Pokemon means that issues can almost always be resolved via Pokemon bans instead.
- Conditional bans. “If X condition is met, Y is not allowed.” Bans of a certain combination of Pokemon, moves or abilities. These should generally be considered a last resort option, something we only look to because any alternative solution would have such significant collateral impact that a conditional ban is preferable to no ban and/or just going to a Pokemon ban. Site leadership should be actively involved in any discussions of potential conditional bans.
I’m sure we’re not going to completely excise the phrase “complex ban” from Smogon’s collective vocabulary, but when we mention a complex ban, we should follow it up with exactly what we mean.