Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4

[Finchinator]

Not opposed to the sleep ban at all, but definitely seems like the council has been making very arbitrary decisions for what to quick ban vs what to put to a suspect test (Volcarona absolutely comes to mind here). Would appreciate more transparency on what kind of situation results in each kind of action, because as far as I can tell right now it's completely based on the whims of the council.

The council right now is more transparent than ever before and it is not close. In the post about the ban itself, I hyperlinked 8 council posts from within the last week on the topic, including multiple stating our intention to vote. I am not sure what more we could possibly do...

We are going to continue posting, surveying, communicating, and so on.

Haha me and put me down all you like but I have no idea what you just wrote - that just sounded like a mesh of buzzwords. If you want to break that down for me feel free but if not cool.

I will make it very simple: getting reqs qualifies someone to determin broken vs balanced, but not deeper policy issues -- my last post . A suspect is not intended to cover uncompetitive things like this -- same reason why we did not suspect evasion things, but rather they were just banned.

 

[Finchinator]

Counterpoint: GEN 5. You did suspect test the OP sleep of that gen

Look at what you just linked. No laddering requirement. Only tournament players with years of experience made up the voting pool. This is not at all comparable.

 

[CobsonYaoi]

Wow, I can't believe the OU Monarchy is pushing the woke agenda on us with a quickban. Smogon has fallen.

 

[AlexTheVP]

I don't mean that as an insult just to understand the rational on why 3.7 was enough of a breaking point rather than a 4.0 or above

If you assume everyone who voted against something voted 5, and everyone who voted for something voted 1, then 3.7 is a little past the point (3.64ish) at which a super majority (2/3) of the voters were against something. Obviously some people are in the 2-4 range, but overall it’s a pretty reasonable point to take action

 

[DragonPhoenix333]

In fairness it isn't actually a shitpost.

That Finch idiot is a grade A moron. Dude makes Tiring decisions like he personally benefits from driving people to VGC

Not saying Finch is doing a fantastic job, but... I'd like to see you to try to do better.

To elaborate further, I don't think this is a complete failure of a council and I wish it was completely overturned. No, I don't think so. Do I dislike this new change on sleep? Yes. But it's not completely shit, and as a player, I don't think I'm necessarily qualified to know what I'm talking about. BUT, I know that Finch isn't the worst possible situation we could be in.

You talk about how this tiering decision drives people away. That's the thing - I think this is more a thing of balance. Add that to the fact that there's probably people out there that abhor sleep, and it's not completely insane.

This really feels like the argument of "Smogon bans things they don't like!" Is actually coming true

Not exactly, since the council isn't really representing smogon as a whole? but even if they were, we are playing by Smogon's rules. The formats are from Smogon's tiering system and policies. If you didn't like those policies, why are you playing Smogon tiers? When you play here, you choose to play by Smogon's rules. Again, we're back to that point of policy vs pokemon. Tiering policy is decided by Smogon, but Pokemon can be suspect tested because they aren't inherently part of Smogon's tiering policies.

I'm also going to be sort of a devil's advocate here. Smogon gets to pick and choose its rules because even after everything, we're not the ones running this website, running the page, running the game. There's people who care too much and there's people who don't give a fuck. There will still be players. You are not special. There's other people out there who are okay with these changes.

I feel like the overall theme is that not everyone can be satisfied. There's people who will say "fuck yeah sleep is gone the game is finally balanced" and there's people who say "wtf why is sleep gone this is unfair i can't spam amoonguss spore now". There's bound to be both. But again, we're coming back to the point that the council gets to choose. We shouldn't be so picky. Just play the tier goddammit. Banning sleep is going to make the tier unplayable. Banning everything broken is going to make new brokens pop up.

So why don't you just enjoy the tier. You might like it in one state more than another, but... you're here to have fun right? Then have fun!

 

[SittinGamer]

Look at what you just linked. No laddering requirement. Only tournament players with years of experience made up the voting pool. This is not at all comparable.

At first I did think it was odd when I heard gen 5 had a suspect, but given that it was only made of qualified players and not laddering, that seems to check out with a ban made on qualified player response.

 

[Deleted User [52440]]

I will make it very simple: getting reqs qualifies someone to determin broken vs balanced, but not deeper policy issues -- my last post . A suspect is not intended to cover uncompetitive things like this -- same reason why we did not suspect evasion things, but rather they were just banned.

I don't understand at all. If this is the case then why have you determined a ban based on the qualified votes? Isn't that an indication getting reqs, is actually important? Why have you put that on the survey if it isn't? You're making no sense.

 

[SittinGamer]

I don't understand at all, if this is the case then why have you determined a ban based on the qualified votes? Isn't that an indication getting reqs, is actually important? Why have you put that on the survey if it isn't? You're making no sense.

You yourself pointed out pages ago that if you want to have a voice, get qualified. I'm not qualified, and I realize my voting pool is not being considered comparative to players with qualified, skilled players with more knowledge than me.

 

[Pokenar]

Haha me and put me down all you like but I have no idea what you just wrote - that just sounded like a mesh of buzzwords. If you want to break that down for me feel free but if not cool.

As a less experienced player, let me take a crack at translating that

Pokemon Bans: Tend to be gen specific unless its obvious,open to being unbanned just as easily and can be unbanned at the change of the meta when a new game or DLC releases

Policy change: Integrated into the very way Smogon meta carries itself, the ruleset rather than a banlist.

To make it more clear the sleep ban is more akin to banning evasion rather than banning Terapagos

 

[Finchinator]

I don't understand at all, if this is the case then why have you determined a ban based on the qualified votes? Isn't that an indication getting reqs, is actually important? Why have you put that on the survey if it isn't? You're making no sense.

https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...-clause-for-sv-ou.3734310/page-4#post-9941567 -- read the post I mentioned a half-dozen times already

I wanted to do a council vote last weekend on sleep before SPL and OST, but some people in the room, who had very valid and understandable points, noted that this wouldn’t be the best look PR wise as it was only brought up a few days prior. While I would’ve liked to handle it internally, this is still possible with a council vote after the survey if that is the conclusion we reach.

This was said after another community member noted surveying it was incorrect, in their opinion, and this should be handled internally.

This discussin happened. We were transparent. We have discussed these things. We even hyperlinked it in the post itself.

 

[Eelstartega]

Look at what you just linked. No laddering requirement. Only tournament players with years of experience made up the voting pool. This is not at all comparable.

Because gen 5 OU was a legacy tier even back then, while Gen 9 IS NOT. Seriously, try using the same norms for those kind of bans, otherwise you'll look like hypocrites. I'm not even really on favor of sleep, just in favor of consistent ruling... Why am I saying this when is clear you won't listen? I Better go to sleep.

 

[Finchinator]

Because gen 5 OU was a legacy tier even back then, while Gen 9 IS NOT. Seriously, try using the same norms for those kind of bans, otherwise you'll look like hypocrites. I'm not even really on favor of sleep, just in favor of consistent ruling.

You cannot handle old gen tiering the same as current gen tiering. Playerbases are too small for major suspect tests, so we draw off of different standards and different requirements. This has been the case for many years.

 

[TheNewGuyM8]

If you assume everyone who voted against something voted 5, and everyone who voted for something voted 1, then 3.7 is a little past the point (3.64ish) at which a super majority (2/3) of the voters were against something. Obviously some people are in the 2-4 range, but overall it’s a pretty reasonable point to take action

I think a visual would definitely help illustrate the vote distribution and make this situation more understandable why a ban was made OR only further the point that this is a controversial decision but we'll have to wait and see.

We can only speculate as outsiders looking in but the distribution matters a lot here. I'm not opposed to taking action but the drastic option of majority of council people voting ban just seems to some people as giving council free range to push their own opinions a still hot and controversial topic rather than expanding it to the community for a huge and impactful decision. will I go as far as to say I agree? Nah to not get bullied off this platform, but I can understand

 

[Aptronym]

This is a really rude generalization and also just untrue given how massive the community is.

False equivelancy. A suspect would be a huge misuse of policy for this. Think about it: suspect reqs are a basic competency test to gauge broken vs balanced. There is no policy backbone or connection to suspect reqs at all, making it like trying to fit a square object in a round hole to suspect something like sleep.

We did not suspect other things deemed uncompetitive like evasion, so why would this suddenly be any different? You trying to differentiate it holds no weight as there is no clause that something is "major" vs "minor" or whatever these means holds specific weight in tiering. You are entitled to your opinion on what is right and what is wrong of course, but the right decision was made within current tiering infastructure without a doubt.

1) Should we still take competitiveness into consideration when discussing and voting on things like Tera, or is that the sole purview of the Council?

2) Would the Council still have taken action against sleep if the survey result was below 3?

3) Why was a suspect test an option on the council vote if this was purely a question of competitiveness?

Trying to understand. Thanks.

 

[Finchinator]

1) Should we still take competitiveness into consideration when discussing and voting on things like Tera, or is that the sole purview of the Council?

Anything is fair game if it is suspected; it is up to the council to frame the suspect appropriately for things like that.

2) Would the Council still have taken action against sleep if the survey result was below 3?

I lean towards no, but also I do not think that is a realistic question as it was clearly a problem in the metagame. It may have been delayed and other things prioritized, but that is speculative.

3) Why was a suspect test an option on the council vote if this was purely a question of competitiveness?

I am giving my own opinion (which many others on council share as the results show and comes after discussing this with tiering admins) -- others on the council were less sure on the topic and voted accordingly, which is fine.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

i like how we have a whole bunch of accounts crawling out of the woodwork that didn't weigh in on the "views from the council" thread or this thread but suddenly have a million reasons to not ban sleep now that the decision's been made. guys, it already happened. the time to make your case was weeks ago. they're not gonna reverse a tiering decision that was discussed and deliberated on at length just because a bunch of casuals are upset about it. just post "breloom applying to mcdonald's rn" on the reddit thread and leave these good people alone

 

[gregdawiz]

Rip. I've made my opinions known on sleep, but the reasoning behind this still feels so so iffy which is just crazy for something this big of a mechanic. You can kinda tell the reasoning is iffy as it really didn't get given much detail even in the post saying it was banned. I've heard some good points about sleep being uncompetitive but I don't think there was enough to justify this move. There really was not enough to prove it wasn't just a few mons that should be banned. Strange that the idea is to preserve those mons, but not to preserve a whole mechanic. Its unfortuante this will affect lower tiers much more than just a darkrai ban but hey im not on council.

 

[Copland]

Did you read the rest of my post? The point is that comparing Pokemon bans and larger policy movements is not ok; they are very much not the same. The former is the intended target of a suspect (alongside generation specific things like Tera/DMax) while the latter is ingrained in policy with layers of precedent and so on.

Getting reqs is a 30-50 game competency test to determine if someone is qualified to see if a Pokemon is broken or balanced. It has nothing to do with deeper tiering policy or framework, which ties back further than many of us have been around.

Even if Suspects aren't used for policy, I think the thing that people are having problems with is that this tiering decision was two-fold--a removal of Sleep Clause and a ban of Sleep moves--when really they should have been separate steps in a larger process. The correct thing to do here was to hold a Suspect for Sleep moves first: if the community decides that Sleep moves are broken, then Council could make the policy change to remove Sleep Clause.

I will make it very simple: getting reqs qualifies someone to determin broken vs balanced, but not deeper policy issues -- my last post . A suspect is not intended to cover uncompetitive things like this -- same reason why we did not suspect evasion things, but rather they were just banned.

Also, isn't the determination of a Pokemon/mechanic's competitiveness very much a component of Suspect Tests? That kind of language has been used to describe a lot of Pokemon that ended up being Suspect Tested, namely Gliscor pre-DLC2. In the Terapagos ban announcement, njnp writes that its uncompetitiveness in certain match-ups was a reason for Council's quickban. I'm not at all saying Terapagos was balanced, but had that tiering decision been done via Suspect Test, should the community not have considered uncompetitiveness when determining its balance?

Screencap for posterity

 

[SittinGamer]

Yeah, even if many of us can't talk in the Policy Review thread, the Views from the Council had multiple pages of sleep discussion for a good few days where anyone could chime in.

Friendly reminder to anyone comparing this to Paralysis/Freeze/Flinch. Sleep Clause already nerfed sleep. Whatever strawman is not comparable.

 

[Shinto7654]

Rip. I've made my opinions known on sleep, but the reasoning behind this still feels so so iffy which is just crazy for something this big of a mechanic. You can kinda tell the reasoning is iffy as it really didn't get given much detail even in the post saying it was banned. I've heard some good points about sleep being uncompetitive but I don't think there was enough to justify this move. There really was not enough to prove it wasn't just a few mons that should be banned. Strange that the idea is to preserve those mons, but not to preserve a whole mechanic. Its unfortuante this will affect lower tiers much more than just a darkrai ban but hey im not on council.

I mean, you made serious arguments trying to say the act of banning a Pokemon from being used in OU is the same as directly modifying a game carts mechanics, so trying to call other stuff iffy feels just a wee bit hypocritical, just saying

 

[Anchor9]

You cannot handle old gen tiering the same as current gen tiering. Playerbases are too small for major suspect tests, so we draw off of different standards and different requirements. This has been the case for many years.

The real problem I believe is that you’re allowing yourself and your council to “define” everything, because if someone controls the definition of everything, that person controls everything.

Like what if judges in U.S.A. decided, “Uh, me and my pals here have decided that the constitution’s definition of free speech isn’t really definitive. Since some people and their ideas seem crazy in our eyes, we have decided that they shouldn’t be allowed to voice them since they’re dangerous.”

I don’t know. Just a bystander.

 

[Axiemeister]

why are the pro-clause arguments even worse now that it's gone? attacking the council over something you acknowledge is broken because a mod was in place is so stupid.

also, the council is chosen to and has the function of making decisions partly based on their own knowledge and opinions (see: bloodmoon ursaluna being suspected while not being the highest score of its survey). if they weren't given that power then everything would have to be a suspect all the time. why complain that the council did what they volunteer themselves to do?

 

[Finchinator]

The real problem I believe is that you’re allowing yourself and your council to “define” everything, because if someone controls the definition of everything, that person controls everything.

Tiering policy defines these things, which existed before our council did or any of the members joined it. We do not have power to dictate any of this and we are only following the guidelines and rules presentd there.

That actually is a big issue here: a lot of people disagree with components of that tiering framework and take it out on our council, but it is not within the power of the council to change it -- just to enforce it.

 

[TheNewGuyM8]

i like how we have a whole bunch of accounts crawling out of the woodwork that didn't weigh in on the "views from the council" thread or this thread but suddenly have a million reasons to not ban sleep now that the decision's been made. guys, it already happened. they're not gonna reverse it because a bunch of casuals are upset about it. just post "breloom applying to mcdonald's rn" on the reddit thread and leave these good people alone

Again, another frankly immature or naive argument. I get it, some of us (including me) aren't "the best" like you guys but c'mon, acting like opinions only matter before they're made or other people high ladder or not can't speak their mind is exactly why people here complain about lack of representation.

But moving aside to the main point, the argument and topic of debate going on right now is how the ban was processed. Pro sleep ban people can be and are arguing that this was the wrong step, it's not a matter of if sleep should go but how it was handled that people are annoyed at. Understand that beforehand

 

[Pokenar]

yeah I only skimmed the policy review thread but even I knew that the survey was moreso just a guideline. I figured pretty much anything over a 3 would get it banned based on the views I saw expressed by mods and council members here.