Metagame 1v1 Metagame Discussion

[Yung Dramps]

I'm just gonna say this.

Contrary to what you believe, the TLs didn't make this decision because they were conspiring against the playerbase or whatever. This decisions was made because post quality in the past 3 suspects has been fucking abysmal. And by abysmal, I mean absolute bottom of the barrel, firebot-level thread derailing and nonchalant, brainless posting.

Let's take the Zygod suspect. You would think that people would focus on, y'know, the actual suspect? But that's not what happened. Instead, we got debates about freaking Zekrom, a Pokemon that should never see the light of day in this or any other OU-based Other Metagame. And this debate continued, even after I among others stepped in and told people to cut it out and focus on the suspect at hand.

Now, don't get me wrong, in the sea of shit, there were good posters who actually focused on the main topic of discussion and prompted some thinking about each suspect. But those people were honest to god a minority.

As sad as it is that we've had to reach this point, I support it. The only people you have to blame for your precious voting rights being taken away from you is yourselves for making such low-quality, brainless posts that sometimes had nothing to do with the suspect in question, and for keeping the standard of thinking so low that the TLs figured it wasn't worth it anymore.

 

[Landon]

Thoughts on KyuB Ban:

Kyurem-Black is was* most certainly one of the best Pokemon in the 1v1. The fact it could run so many diverse sets and the ability to beat top tier Pokemon make this mon so good. I'll admit I'm sad to see this mon go, as I have tons of them in my builder. However, it will be nice for a change to not see KyuB everytime you click the "Battle!" button. Now, I am not 100% if I agree or disagree with the decision to BAN it. Like DEG said, it has its counters and many times you don't need to prepare to beat it. There are a plethora of Steel and Fairy-types that can counter this mon. It's not like the KyuB counters are low on the VR either, Metagross-M, Magearna, Genesect, Aegislash, Mawile-M, and Gardevoir-M. Most teams run Gyarados-M as a Kyub counter as well, even though the Laser Focus set can beat it. Those Pokemon are just some of the more top tier, Steel and Fairy-type Pokemon, excluding Gyarados-M, that can beat KyuB. There is a vast majority of other Pokemon that can beat it, especially with the rise of bulky P-Z being a good counter. It's been around so long people just deal with it now. With the removal of KyuB, sturdy types like Donphan, Golem and Magnezone are going to most likely be up in usage. Maybe I'm a little salty I have to delete 1/4 of my builder, but I am probably 65% DnB and 35% Ban.


Thoughts on Jirachi Ban:

Even though I voted in the Suspect Test for DnB, I am glad this menace is banned.


Thoughts on DnB Zygarde-C:

Arguably one of its best counters was removed from 1v1, but it still doesn't make this mon broken. All in all, this mon isn't broken and can be easily counter by just about every Ice or Fairy-type in the 1v1 metagame. Zygarde really only runs one set, Groundium, making it not very versatile.


Thoughts on DnB for Sleep:

Sleep is a annoying part of 1v1. I never really thought of sleep being an issue for me at least. There is so many easy counters to it and the fact of how it's mainly one mon being an issue. I will maybe give you Hypnosis, and again only one mon actually uses it to some success. Do not mention anything about Grass Whistle either... Specifically talking about Jumpluff, there are so many commonly used mons that beat it. One of those counter being the 3rd most used Pokemon in 1v1, Tapu Koko.

 

[Ren]

I disagreed with the Doubles OU council decision to overturn the Jirachi suspect last gen, on the grounds that it disrespects the laddering and the point of view of the players. From this statement you can probably guess my stance towards this post, which I feel is needlessly condescending towards a community which has done nothing but display interest in furthering the tiering.

Regardless of what you believe, there are more tactful ways to change your tiering methods rather than outright calling a majority of the playerbase for not understanding a metagame which they contribute to on a regular basis and play daily. I feel as though being more tactful with your phrasing, regardless of how correct it is, would have made this post more well received. I don't play 1v1 often, but if I were them I would feel incredibly insulted right now at two suspect tests which I laddered for being overturned just because the council said so. In addition, if I were part of the playerbase then I'd be upset about being called out on not knowing a metagame which I play and contribute to daily. This isn't all I'm going to post about, so don't quote this post and just address this portion - Read all of it, understand it, and then talk.

As somebody who plays this metagame sometimes, I agree with the decisions themselves (for the most part - Seriously guys, you had the chance to revisit Power Construct again and it's still allowed?) - I just disagree with the way they were put into place. I feel as though some warning as to this happening and an allowance of input from the playerbase would have made this decision easier to swallow, as well as tactful phrasing and not overturning any of the suspects so far. Why? The suspects in question (all three, even if one outcome remained outchanged) are something that players have devoted their time to in order to achieve reqs. Regardless of how people phrased their posts, this should have been proof enough that people care for the future of their metagame enough to devote at least an hour to laddering in order to have something they'd like to say. As someone who isn't as articulate with posting, I can say that I agree with this method being available for users to say what they will. Regardless of however many people shitpost, it does take time, dedication and an understanding of the metagame to reach the point where you can make this decision.

Furthermore, I don't care about the actual decisions themselves - I agree with your reasoning, I just disagree with how this was put into place. I also disagree with invalidating the opinion of players who aren't fortunate enough to be articulate in their forum posts, as regardless of how you phrase it, that's what this is doing - Who's going to listen to someone who can't explain themselves properly under this new format? In addition, what guarantee is there that you all will listen to the playerbase instead of yourselves when you literally just overturned two suspects that players grinded out hours of laddering for? This is a huge middle finger to all that effort and time. I highly implore you all to reconsider the decision you've made, because there's a way to do things and this isn't it, at least in my opinion. And to whoever replies to this post, and all these posts: You can phrase stuff better than "we feel that the public of 1v1 at large doesn't know what's best for itself." You can say this in a nicer and more respectful way and no matter how true it is, saying "It's true" isn't a justification towards insulting your playerbase. There's a line between being truthful in a way that is constructive and just outright being disrespectful, and I believe that you shouldn't cross it.

edit: I feel as though it'd be a good idea to take this post as an example of how to respectfully address an audience, as that was what I attempted to do.

 

[ayedan]

Since I play 1v1 alot, I see this Decision from the Staff quite unthinkable and plain rude to the Rest of the 1v1 playerbase. I'm not going to write alot since the people above have explained it perfectly. When I was in the 1v1 room chat, I have seen multiple comments on the deal and all the staff say is "If u are going to get angry and have opinions, go post them on thread. You guys are my friends but, its very inconsiderate of you to not think of us, players, before you make decisions. We already had a suspect on the two mons and was very close and might of ended in a resuspect in future but, you guys didn't care enough to ask for our opinions on the matter of staff resuspecting it THEMSELVES! These are my thoughts on the matter and you staff I hope u take this seriously and actually think next time before u do something.
Thx,
LucarioAidan
lol, was edited.

 

[Gross Sweep]

I am going to start off by saying that I have a lot of respect for the 1v1 Council. However, I can't not voice my opinion on the recent acts of the council. The latest post by esteemed 1v1 council member MaceMaster was both insulting to myself as a 1v1 player, and revealed what I hope aren't the true opinions of the council as a whole about the community.

I'll start of by saying that I honestly don't care whether or not the council decides to council vote or suspect test mons in general, but the way they did this round of voting honestly came as a slap to the face. The use of a council vote to overturn a pair of public suspects (a third one was voted upon, but not overturned) is disrespectful to the 1v1 community, as the reason given was that "we no longer know what's best for us". Going forward I'd like to hl a specific portion of the Council's post that I believe most of the ire around this topic comes from.

The second is that we feel that the public of 1v1 at large doesn't know what's best for itself. The last few suspects had results in which the majority wanted change, but due to a 60% supermajority being required to ban, nothing happened. We are therefor taking matters into our own hands and voting on past suspects.

I feel that the first sentence that "the public of the 1v1 at large doesn't know what's best for itself" comes off as saying that the 1v1 community isn't smart enough to come to the right decision on whether or not ban a pokemon, as we're prone to voting for the wrong answer. The issue I have with this is that it comes off very disrespectful. I'm sure there was better intent behind that sentence, but I have trouble seeing it. Meaning that I would love a council member to spin that sentence for me, so I can see what they were truly trying to convey. Or if it was really said honestly, no matter if blunt or rude towards the entirety of the community. I basically want to know if your reasoning is "it needed to be said, that you're all incompetent" or you misspoke.

The issue I have with the second sentence is that it's phrased as if nothing happened. Yes, a ban didn't occur, but the post makes it sound like that's a bad thing. Suspect tests end with a no ban all the time, I don't see why the 1v1 community deeming a mon not broken is viewed as an unsuccessful suspect. If a council member could explain to me, and the rest of the community, why the community saying no ban at the end of a suspect test is seen as wrong I would greatly appreciate it. As I've heard the argument that it stops the metagame from advancing, but that seems like terrible logic. Removing a nonbroken aspect from the meta wont help push the meta towards a greater state of homeostasis. So I'd love to hear what the council has to say on the matter.

Finally the big one "Voting on past suspects". I see this as the biggest offense. I don't mind suspects being revisited, I would have just preferred a little warning. Even just a blurb today saying, we're revoting on "x,y, and z". you have a week to discuss and give opinions would have been ok with me. However, blindsiding us because mother knows best and our votes were bad was just unacceptable to me. It came across as a slap to the face, as someone who has played this meta since ORAS I felt insulted as I've voted in some of the suspects referenced, and I really didn't think my opinions on the matter were less than valid - Yet I am starting to rethink that notion. Maybe my opinion doesn't really matter...

In conclusion I see this as a low point for the 1v1 Council, and community as a whole, that I hope we recover from. I hope a council member can find the time to answer questions I asked, as I would greatly appreciate it. I'll finish this post by just stating: While the council has royaly messed up, I haven't given up faith and feel you shouldn't either. They're still a dedicated group of individuals trying to create the best tier possible. While I don't expect anyone to forget or forgive them for this, I expect an open mind moving forward. If we as a community get engulfed in this decision and can't move on we'll get stuck in a rut and lose all the great progress we've accumulated as a tier. Also just a word to the council. Don't start a Z suspect tell this is sorted out, it would cause more problems if for some reason you decided to act on something enteirly different within the next week or two - just some advice.

 

[Uselesscrab]

Hello everyone. I'd like to apologize for the events of the last day. We failed to appropriately inform the community as a whole of our intention to revote on previous suspects, and moreover insulted everyone in the process by insinuating that their opinions where not only unworthy of consideration, but so fundamentally unimportant that we could summarily dismiss them at a moment's notice — which is obviously not the case, nor remotely what we intended.

What did we intend? The idea was that the formation of a council with TI at its head would mark an increased emphasis on council votes (one of which we had already done, I might add, with the Marshadow ban) and a revision of the suspect process. Unfortunately, this intent has to be made explicit to actually carry any kind of weight, and we just blithely went about our discussion and voting without actually telling anyone of our plans, which was not a great idea, to say the least.

I know that even if we had made our intentions clearer in advance, people still would likely have objected to the notion of overturning previous suspects. I've attempted to justify this over the course of the last day by pointing out that the Kyurem-B suspect was four months ago and that the Jirachi one was decided by one vote, but even so, as Quantum Tesseract noted, OU took around 10 months before resuspecting Sableye-Mega, and we should have tried to gauge how the community would respond to such a reversal. The timeframe of resuspecting is also something that should be worked into our new tiering philosophy, which I believe needs to be our next priority — more on that later.

That said — and I hope I'm not misreading things — I really haven't seen as much opposition to the decisions we made as the manner in which we made them. I know this doesn't account for all of you, and I'd encourage those among you who fall into this category to refrain from cursing at us or telling us to, I don't know, die slow and painful deaths. Yes, both of those occured in the one-versus-one metagame thread on Smogon University today. I hope I've shown enough remorse and desire to work with you guys in the intervening hours to avoid being the recipient of such harsh rebukes in the future.

Some other things from the posts made after our decision:

I'm very embarrassed about my lack of reqs for the recent suspects and, truly, the general perception that I've been far too inactive recently. I hoped that our addition of UOP and Mace to the council would assuage some of your worries about us being out of touch, but even so you have a right to be annoyed — at me in particular, as I've so poorly defended the council today. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to get reqs for all of the future suspects, but I will at least make an effort (which has been my goal recently) to keep my finger on the pulse of the metagame — because I can understand the sense of frustration that having your decisions undone by people who didn't put in nearly as much time as you did can often engender.

I am interested in The Dark Alakazam's proposal as to what the role of the council should be going forward and I'd like to hear people's opinions on that as a potential form of future council intervention, since this one clearly did not work at all for anyone. I am not sure about the exact methods we'll use for the Z-move suspect, but I think it could be interesting to try some sort of DOU-esque posting requirement (which I think Rumplestiltskin or someone recommended to me)? Maybe? That would definitely deal with the primary issue of people voting for patently misguided reasons (note that misguided doesn't here mean a viewpoint that the council disagrees with, contrary to what today's unfortunate decisions might imply). Anyway, I think our first step should be to work in earnest on a new tiering philosophy, to resolve some of the weird numerical issues and questionable examples that have clouded our suspect discussions in the past.

I don't know about these decisions being reversed (we'll see what the rest of the council has to say), but if they do indeed remain in place, don't think that means that we've learned nothing from this experience. I hope we, and I in particular after months of being the butt of well-deserved inactivity jokes and then finally becoming active only to make this poor decision, can take steps toward regaining your guys' trust.

P.S. I know Mace has a large post planned as well — sorry for stealing your apologetic thunder.

 

[Nalei]

First things first, I'd just like to apologize to anyone whom my post hurt. Although the ultimate decision that we made is something that I do think was for the best, I did not mean to belittle the community. We care about you. We respect you. We care about what you think. We love you. I'm so sorry if anything I've ever said has made it seem that this is not the case.

Disclaimer: a lot of this was taken from other people / reworded from other people since, to be frank, it couldn't be said any better.
Please read this. It's important.

This is purely about the council decision that I so heavily disagree with. This is insanity - not only is it taking away our say in things, its reversing things you already let us have a say in. I'm outraged, and I didn't even have the time to vote in these suspects.

Just because people the 1v1 council deems marginally worse than them have different opinions doesn't mean that those opinions are inherently wrong. You have to have a decent level of competence to obtain reqs, and if you're actually voting then you're both knowledgeable and care about the state of the metagame.

A strong argument doesn't correlate with how the meta feels when something is broken. A guy could say "yes focus sash was broken because it was strong." and you would call him an idiot even though he is correct and then disenfranchise him. At the end of the day, it's not opinions that get things banned, it's how people feel when they play against it. People who get reqs go through 70 games against something and can obviously tell its broken, they just can't put it into words.

One thing you have to understand that Smogon and the whole tiering system is built around community contribution, and eschewing the community in such tiering decisions is antithetical. Although suspect testing does take a lot of time, many suspect tests enforce strict requirements that guarantee that the top players will be voting, not just some randoms. Although though bigger tiers have council changes pretty often, they never go "ok we have a new council, time to break the way we've been handling it forever and now approach things way differently".

No matter how the council tries to dress it up now, it's pretty much obvious they just took the "masses" (as if x or so votes out of hundreds of players is a mass anyways) voting away because they disagreed with the Jirachi or Kyurem non-ban. If the reasoning was so obvious to them, obviously they shouldn't have let it go to a public test and just council ban before.

It's also extremely ironic that in most of the last suspect tests, a significant amount of the council didn't even bother to get reqs.

Instead, the council decided to directly contradict the tiering you guys outlined for 1v1, for the sake of having a "better tier." I wanted to keep Kyurem and I still think that was a right decision. So why don't you explain to me why my opinion was wrong and why that means people like me should have even less influence than we already do?

Except this isn't possible, because you don't even know my own personal opinion on why Kyurem-B should not be banned since I never put my full opinion out. I didn't get the reqs either but that was because of personal time issues. It was never a requirement that the other voters post their opinion and now you're saying they can't vote because their opinions weren't good enough? What? You're saying they failed in a requirement that didn't even exist.

So what is it? Am I not good enough at 1v1 yet to have an opinion? Just because some of the council and maybe 10 or 20 max other players (I say max because not even 20 voted ban) disagreed with one decision doesn't mean torpedo the system, it means it's possible that you just got fairly outvoted and people thoughtfully and legitimately actually disagreed with you. Is that so hard to believe?

I think this is kind of unfair considering a fair few of them are also playing in major 1v1 tours and, rightly so, their priorities are towards building for that and helping their teammates as best they can. This will happen with other tournaments throughout the year. We want to keep top players engaged with the tier, not drive them away and I feel something like this has the potential to do the latter.

Even if I don’t accept that the public system is as flawed as it’s made out to be I’m glad there is an ongoing consideration towards reaching the best solution for everyone. Mace is completely right about producing the best tier being the most important factor here, even if it is subjective I would much rather play a fun and balanced metagame and not be able to vote than the other way round.

While I agree that there is for sure several voters which probably don't know enough the 1v1 metagame and get reqs just because someone passes them a good team to easily get them, I think that "Public Suspect Tests" are required because it allows some players who like being involved in 1v1 to give our opinion otherwise than by words.

If you don't want several people which probably don't know enough the 1v1 metagame and get reqs because someone gave them a good team you can follow what others councils have done. For example, the RU council during ORAS made two suspect tests where you have to reach 2900 reqs twice, I mean there were two laddering process. In the end, only like 15 people managed to vote, so it was a good suspect in my opinion, as only players that were really interest in the tier voted. So, I think that something like that can happen here, and in that way the council doesn't have to read people complaining, and in the end few people will vote, but this process is very long, so that is a problem.

What I am trying to say is: The council is not a group of PU players, they play and know 1v1 probably more that anyone, but there are people that also know this tier, that also care about it, because we spend time playing this game, and they should be able to vote if they really show that they care about 1v1 development.

I just don't see how not sticking to the public suspect for now is not satisfactory right now. I understand if Council Votes are needed to decide on broken things after a Generation shift or something, but for stuff that's been in the tier for roughly two months already. To design a public system of tiering is to acknowledge the innate flaws a public voting system has (even with GXE-COIL requirements). There will always be information bias, and people will listen to those that they relate to more.

Members that post more in the metagame thread that facilitate discussion here like Gross Sweep or Kentari will have a greater influence than either DEG or The Immortal, both of which post infrequently. Strong leadership that wants the public to agree with their views focuses on engaging with their members more.

You may ask, "Why should a person w/o 1v1 knowledge, a person that started playing the tier yesterday have a saying to whether or not a Pokemon gets banned or not?". Perfectly valid question. However, my question is what stops that person from logging on smogon, reading the arguments posted on the suspect discussion thread and form an actual opinion based on what people that play 1v1 more consistently say?
And as utopian as that scenario sounds like, we all the know the answer to that is ''absolutely nothing''.

What makes a vote unhealthy and toxic for the community and the meta is personal bias. Because at the end of the day, the council does consist of people that know 1v1 very well, but they are just people and people do have bias (some more, some less). And yes the 1v1 council might know today whats best. Who or what guarantees that they will know tomorrow? What guarantees that the new members that will eventually get added will always know what is best for the tier? Nothing can possibly guarantee that.

If you really want to move to a more well defined, objectively healthier suspecting process you need to accept that every vote carries some sort of bias whether it comes from a council member, myself, a guy that started playing yesterday etc. If you are willing to work on that and eliminate the bias from the votes, that will lead you to a clear, beneficial result, whether the people that are voting are 6 or 3006.

I doubt anybody would be upset with harder reqs or a higher bar to reach, I know I wouldn't have been. But instead, you post this drivel about council, and heavily insinuate people who voted differently with Kyurem-B were wrong. What's sad is that the system isn't even changing that much, but by only critiquing the public system and making it seem like only top player's have relevant opinions, you're making an unnecessary divide between the PS 1v1 community and the more Smogonish/tournament 1v1 community. While these two have a lot of overlap there are definitely things that distinguish both of them.

So why do you feel the need to insist that 'top players' have some type of knowledge unavailable to the rest of us? We all play the same metagame with the same rules. A lot of this tiering just comes down to opinions and preferences. I'm glad you know a divide exists between the best and the rest so to speak. I'm just saying I think you're needlessly reinforcing it with your words.

I know you guys actually deliberate and am confident in your decisions. Can't you give your user base, the ones who are just decent in laddering and make the effort to post here that same respect?

Thank you for the feedback. Your post was sobering. You've given me a new idea about how we could work suspects and I'm currently discussing it with the council. That being said, I don't know where you got a lot of your stuff from. I never said, or at least meant to imply, that there is a clear divide between top players or that we don't care about you. If this is what people got from what I said, I sincerely apologize.

I agree with all of these decisions except DNB sleep. I am shocked that the council could think that flinching someone to death is unbalanced, but winning if your opponent doesn't wake up turn one is perfectly fine. Any player well versed in the current metagame should know that previous statement is not an exaggeration.

Banning Kyurem-Black is the most drastic (but required) ban that will definitely lead to the additional suspect tests for mons that were countered by Kyub, specifically Zygarde-Complete and Mimikyu. However, just because banning Kyurem-Black opens the door for other potentially broken Pokemon doesn't mean that Kyurem-Black did not deserve to be banned. I am reminded of Landorus-Therian in OU, except Landorus-Therian is competitive and balanced, as it cannot simply on the fly make a set that beats any one of it counters, and in a 6v6 meta such as OU, Landorus-Therian cannot easily overpower entire teams, unlike Kyurem-Black. I would describe Kyurem-Black as 1v1's poisonous glue; it checks many powerful mons, but also has the potential to beat almost every Pokemon in the meta, given enough creativity with setbuilding. It needed to go.

People are also concerned with the Council's bypass of the last 3 suspect test's results. I believe that while this is indeed concerning, and could set a dangerous precedent if not properly checked, I believe there is a simple solution that can satisfy everyone. Only allow the council to bypass suspect decision in cases where voting resulted in a 50-59% ban vote. The Kyurem-Black, Jirachi, and Zygod suspect tests all fall under this category, and each of these tests were controversial and undeniably involved people voting for their own benefit, rather than voting with the metagame in mind. If a suspect result comes in with a supermajority, it is clear that the Pokemon or mechanic in question is banworthy; if the result comes in with a minority ban vote, it is clear that the Pokemon or mechanic is fine in the metagame. Only in these cases of "majority but not supermajority" should the council intervene. To be clear, I disagree with the decision to completely halt public suspect tests, but I do agree with the choice to override the previous 3 suspect decisions. Public suspects should be the basis of what should or should not be banned in any meta, but at the same time, any suspect test where a majority is met, but not a supermajority, should be reviewed.

Council, I implore that you reimplement public suspect testing with this "50-59%" clause in effect. I think this is a balanced way to continue suspecting without letting personal biases rule the metagame.

I like this idea. We're discussing this. Thank you.

This is an excellent example of someone trying to look into the metagame from the outside.

You failed to acknowledge the fact that recent suspects have had absolutely abysmal discussion while the suspect was going on, and that almost all votes that weren't made because X mon did or didn't beat their teams were made either because someone else told them to or because they literally did /pick for it.

Most importantly, I'm seeing far too many people who just skimmed the post rather than taking their time, and as a result, skipping past this portion


This statement literally means that suspects will be handled mostly, if not completely through discussion, which means that your voices now matter more than ever before, since there can't possibly be some random voter or spiteful Ferrothorn lover to cancel out your vote without valid reasoning.

There is a massive downside to this, however, and that is the fact that we now have to convince the Tier Leaders to act with consideration to what we say, rather than just getting a certain rank on a ladder and forcing them to listen to us, however, with that said, I think I'd rather trust Tier Leaders with that kind of power than a growing community of shitposters, but maybe that's just me.

Osra really said a lot of what I wanted to say. Your (the community's) input is so important to us. As TLs, our ultimate goal is to make 1v1 a better meta. That being said, I do see the danger in standing on the edge of the cliff of a dictatorship. My personal goal as a TL is to be the bridge; to truly listen to and moreover, consider, what people say. If I ever lock my mind into one decision, I want you to call me out on it. I want to be punished for it. It's so important for us to be held accountable. Yung Dramps also talked about community input. We need people to post.

I remember at one point, I think by Gojira, I was asked what qualifies as a good post, but was too preoccupied to respond. I want to see ideas that give me perspectives. I know the facts. Giving me an overview of what a Pokemon does won't tilt me in either way. I need to see innovative things that I haven't been exposed to before to grow more knowledgeable and to make a more informed decision.

As much as it pains me to say this, and believe me, it does, I have to agree with DurzaOffTopic. This should never have happened, and while I respect you guys a lot you’ve just disappointed me as leaders.

When a public suspect is held, it’s to decide what will happen with a Pokemon in the tier. While not unheard of, resuspects are a near-to-last resort, only to be used in the case of a near vote and continuing issues or major metagame changes. Overriding a suspect vote with a council vote? Hell no. It’s dishonest, insulting to your playerbase, and incredibly rude to everyone who put in the time to weigh in - especially given that not all of the council even bothered to make those reqs, and is made even more of a kick in the d*ck by the fact that you continue to talk about community input. By doing this, you as a council are making it clear that when you say community input, you mean rubberstamp. If you’re going to be outright ignoring the communities decision, why the hell would they expect to be listened to just by posting? If banning Kyurem-B is so important that it couldn’t be allowed to remain no matter what, it should never have been suspected, ditto for Jirachi. Once you went that step, however, its out of your hands. As an OM and with TI’s approval, 1v1 can do this where official tiers can’t*, but this is a major step in the wrong direction if we want to be taken seriously any time in the next century.

As a player, this won’t stop me from playing, but I’ll be damned if this hasn’t just made me not want to have a thing to do with the 1v1 tiering in the future - and made me not want to even keep defending it. How can I argue that 1v1 isn't a joke and that it should have more inclusion and respect if I’m going to be proven wrong without warning? The decisions themselves aren't exactly an issue, and it would have been fine if they had been council voted from the start or reached by suspect - but with this as the source?

*See the DOU drama with AzuRachi last gen for more info

When I talk about community input, I mean: "Here's what I think, convince me otherwise." I genuinely do my best to be open-minded to everything. The reason that we decided to do this is is this: during the future Z suspect, we want to be able to weight an ideal meta with Z to a meta without Z. We wanted to do this in a timely manner. I value your feedback, and if you have any specific ideas of how we could get going in the right direction again, I would love to hear them.

Ever since the early days when there was barely even a discord server for the tier, 1v1 has had a very open minded group of players . Often respecting players views and making decisions together as a community. However, I feel like the council betrayed the trust of the community. The councils decision to review past suspects and making the decisions themselves (without asking the community if they felt a resuspect was needed) was inherently a flawed one. The council basically deemed what the community thought was irrelevant due to the low voter turn out. However, it often seems that the voters are the (generally) ranked higher members of the community. The reason we have suspect reqs is so that only players who care enough and are skilled enough are allowed to influence the meta. I think the action of the council was an act of frustration. They were frustrated with the players of the meta they love and their inability to act on something. And though its understandable, I feel like this act of withholding suspect will do far more harm to the player base than it will good for the meta. If I had to offer a solution for this problem, it would be this. If the council wants to keep on with holding suspects, they should at least allow the community to influence what is suspected. In conclusion, I think many players (myself included) trust and respect the council but feel wronged by their lack of community outreach.

Understand that in every case of what we voted on, a majority wanted a ban, but it wasn't the 60% needed. I do think that because of this, relooking them was necessary (why I like TDA's 50% rule). Also, I'm not sure if this is something that was implied or not, but suspecting a previously suspected mon again is pretty much a non-option as there's nothing that says that the results would be any different this time around.

PS: It's okay, you can steal my apologetic thunder any time Uselesscrab
edit: And PM me if you have any questions or criticisms. I'd be happy to hear you out

 

[The Official Glyx]

Taking the time to reply to every single post requires way too much effort, so instead I'll just cover all the issues presented-

ISSUE 1: "the public of 1v1 at large doesn't know what's best for itself"

Hide

This is by no means an insult to the competent users who do their best for the community and proactively make an effort to better the metagame as a whole. This is simply a statement of acknowledgment of the fact that there are far more users who can't be bothered to put thought into their actions, despite how significant of an impact on the metagame they may have. These people know who they are, and should be ashamed of themselves for acting selfishly.

Admittedly, raising suspect reqs would've been the ideal way to start, rather than jumping straight to this, but in the end, shit quality is being ironed out, and that's all that matters towards achieving a healthier metagame, and in addition, enforces the notion that people should be voting with some kind of logic and reasoning, rather than the majority of voters literally voting either because X mon does or does not beat their teams, someone telling them what to vote, or even literally just voting randomly.

Accepting that there are too many irresponsible users influencing the metagame is the first step to making progress. Once the metagame and community have stabilized to the point where suspect tests can finally be taken seriously, then I believe it would be alright to resume doing proper public tests, until then, this treatment is absolutely necessary, regardless of how harsh some may interpret it.

ISSUE 2: The outcome of prior suspect tests

Hide

Firstly, all the suspects that were brought back up for the council to vote upon were incredibly indecisive in their initial outcomes with Kyurem-Black being a literal 50/50, Jirachi being just one vote shy of a ban, and Zygarde-Complete being two votes short. It was admittedly abrupt and sudden for these kinds of things to happen without warning, HOWEVER, you must keep in mind that a strong majority of people in the room, discord, and smogon were all leaning towards the very same outcomes that the council decided upon, with the exception of Kyurem-Black, which was STILL split 50/50 on whether or not we should resuspect it, according to roompolls, which really left nobody except the leadership to act as the tiebreaking votes.
I know the Zygarde-Complete suspect was a majority Ban vote, but don't forget that that suspect is the reason we needed this decision in the first place

Secondly, in addition to being indecisive suspect tests, it was also around either the Kyurem or Jirachi suspect when the community really started becoming excessively toxic and shitposty. As a result of this, it is reasonable to believe that this toxicity spread to the suspect tests, thus tampering with what the realistic outcome of each test would have been. This further solidifies the notion that we need to iron out these harmful presences from having influential roles in shaping the metagame, to which debate about how we should go about doing so is open.

Lastly, we are still not an official metagame yet, if we ever will be, and as such, we are still in a stage of development where we have to trust and rely on the leaders to guide the metagame in the right direction, rather than force our own thoughts and opinions upon them. Anyone who's been keeping track of everything that goes on in the thread will know that the community hasn't exactly been the most helpful in making the metagame better, and as a result, we're now in this position where we are required to post logic and reasoning for changes to happen, rather than complaining about things for long enough until we get a suspect.

CONCLUSION

Hide

We should have faith in knowing that the council members are doing their best to make sure that the 1v1 metagame is as healthy as it can be, especially considering that we have two strong members representing the community in the council now with UnleashOurPassion and MaceMaster. In order to help them and the metagame become the best they can be, we NEED to start becoming more vocal when matters arise, and at the same time, the leadership also has more growing to do as well, to prevent huge problems like this from occurring again in the future. The most important thing that both the community and council can do is actively communicate our plans and feelings so that all decisions can be done with clarity from this point onward.

 

[tysequaine]

Killing off threats in a meta is something that we can all agree is a good thing, but as a member of this community, I'm shocked at the lack of transparency that has been shown in this situation. Look at the outcry from the community. Look at the backlash you've received over the last day.

Your first move should be to rewind the clock, and reverse these rash decisions. Of course, these are suspects that should be happening, but this course of action has run contrary to the entire point of other metagames. Us, the players. Reverse the bans. See the faith of the community be restored. End this drama. Let the suspects run as they should be run; democratically. Very much of the community are playing 1v1 to have fun, and the future of the meta should be up to them as a whole to decide what is and what isn't fun. End of the day, it's up to you as the people who run the metagame, but i'd like to see you make the decision that leads to the most fun.

Sorry for the rant, just had to get this off my chest.

 

[The Immortal]

Hey guys. I want to apologize for some of Mace’s words. We wanted to give him the opportunity but in hindsight it was a poor decision to have him post as he did not portray the council’s view clearly.

The reasons for electing to halt public suspect tests and to hold a council revote is 1) the previous tests have had low outcomes of voters and 2) a number of voters are voting because they believe something else will or should be suspected rather than voting based on the suspect itself - this isn’t my opinion, people have stated their reason for voting. These reasons prevent the 1v1 metagame from progressing.

To clarify the situation on future tests, the idea is to publicly post a suspect (based on feedback from this thread and the council’s own experience off course) which will be followed by a period of community discussion and ultimately the council will vote. I’m open to increasing the number of council members or having additional temporary council members for each test, similar to some standard tiers. Whatever is necessary to have the best outcome for the 1v1 metagame.

 

[ayedan]

Hey guys. I want to apologize for some Mace’s words. We wanted to give him the opportunity but in hindsight it was a poor decision to let him post as he did not portray the council’s view clearly.

The reasons for electing to halt public suspect tests is 1) the previous tests have had low outcomes of voters and 2) a number of voters are voting because they believe something else will or should be suspected rather than voting based on the suspect itself - this isn’t my opinion, people have stated their reason for voting. These reasons prevent the 1v1 metagame from progressing.

To clarify the situation on future tests, the idea is to publicly post a suspect (based on feeedback from this thread and the council’s own experience off course) which will be followed by a period of community discussion and ultimately the council will vote. I’m open to increasing the number of council members or having additional temporary council members for each test, similar to some standard tiers. Whatever is necessary to have the best outcome for the 1v1 metagame.

Thanks TI, I appreciate you clearing shit up from Mace's mistakes and people (like me) lashing out because of it. We need this statement from someone higher up (like you) to clarify the thoughts of the council and reinterpret it.

 

[dom]

lettsa go

The reasons for electing to halt public suspect tests is 1) the previous tests have had low outcomes of voters and 2)

the suspect results fell short of the 60% necessary to banish Zygarde's Complete form from 1v1. Thanks to everyone who participated in this suspect test; we received excellent voter turnout (including some votes from alts! Don't do that, kids). The full results of yet another extremely close suspect can be found here.

(different suspect with 22 votes)

(deod)
looks fine to me. 22 voters is enough, especially when compared to ACTUAL TIERS (1, 2). definetely seems like a way for the "council" to handpick what they want in and out of the metagame. don't even get me started on the kyub ban.

To clarify the situation on future tests, the idea is to publicly post a suspect (based on feeedback from this thread and the council’s own experience off course) which will be followed by a period of community discussion and ultimately the council will vote. I’m open to increasing the number of council members or having additional temporary council members for each test, similar to some standard tiers. Whatever is necessary to have the best outcome for the 1v1 metagame.

I don't get it, why is there no discussion on this subject. After one week of a Kyurem-Black-less metagame, I'm pretty sure both sides need to argument and convince the other side. Without that there's no use of suspect testing, I get it you're discussing it in the room but I'd like to you to put it here. Anyways, I do not really think Kyurem-Black should be banned at all.
haha ironic

dude, it's so obvious that people don't want to talk when they don't want to talk. it's pretty clear that zmoves are the hot topic right now and is what the council should you know, actually be talking about but wouldn't that be too easy.

why do i even try to fight this

 

[Joker 1v1]

This is just my opinion but aren't we the 1v1 community, not the 1v1 council. And the community shouldn't be narrowed down to 5 people. No offense. That being said it's a shame they were fun pokemon that made you have to plan for them.

Let's take a trip down memory lane....how can we forget the pride of 1v1 him self, Owen Wilson (Aloan Dugtrio). He would defeat both Jirachi and Kyu-B with ease. I never saw the hax everyone has I guess. I've been flinched more times by a headbutt dunsparce than I've flinched ppl with Jirachi. I've had multiple games I've used iron head on jirachi and didn't get flinches for 10+ turns...my point being I guess is ppl complain a lot instead of dealing with it.

My first memory of 1v1 was power herb Kyu-B...good times...at least deg voted No...I'd say lets follow deg but he was the only one who voted ban sleep. Sleep which is needed to use dream eater....when are we unbanning OK Moves...they only 30% and if Kyu-B can do that by pressing 1 button how bad can they possibly be ;) ;) ;)

 

[Yung Dramps]

Killing off threats in a meta is something that we can all agree is a good thing, but as a member of this community, I'm shocked at the lack of transparency that has been shown in this situation. Look at the outcry from the community. Look at the backlash you've received over the last day.

Your first move should be to rewind the clock, and reverse these rash decisions. Of course, these are suspects that should be happening, but this course of action has run contrary to the entire point of other metagames. Us, the players. Reverse the bans. See the faith of the community be restored. End this drama. Let the suspects run as they should be run; democratically. Very much of the community are playing 1v1 to have fun, and the future of the meta should be up to them as a whole to decide what is and what isn't fun. End of the day, it's up to you as the people who run the metagame, but I'd like to see you make the decision that leads to the most fun.

Sorry for the rant, just had to get this off my chest.

Sorry for the short post (gtg soon) but I disagree with this. Looking at the 1v1 room and the discussion here, very few people took issue with the bans themselves. The way it was handled was what people disagreed with. And as you can see, the council has since apologized, taken suggestions and clarified their stance. I think this is unnecessary, and adds even more confusion: It won't end the drama at all. Trust me, if this is done, people will then proceed to complain about how we/the council is "indecisive" or whatever, I just know.

 

[Garou]

Now this may be controversial, but instead of getting angry or trying to roast the council or whatever, I thought I would do something else. I think that with the recent Kyurem-Black ban that Zygarde-Complete is now worthy of a ban, as one of the main reasons I saw before in the thread a couple pages back for it to not be banned was that although it was very strong it was kept in check by a few metagame defining threats, the main mon of which was Kyurem-Black. Surely with Kyurem-Black now banned it would be prudent to revisit Zygarde-Complete (not sure if this was taken into account by the council) but the absence of Kyurem-Black seems to me to be a gateway for Zygarde-Complete to enter a new plane of viability as its main counter, one with incredible usage, is now gone, potentially making it broken. Just some food for thought I guess, what do you guys think?

 

[Freddy Kyogre]

i actually kinda like this it really agrees with what i feel about the metagame (which i wont state but it should be obvious), and kyub i can do without

now can i just ask for something:
either
a) better execution in the future, such as TELLING US AHEAD OF TIME WITH A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT, IN SAY, THE DISCORD instead of just DEG popping into the 1v1 room, saying "oh we're voting on some big stuff in the council" and then leaving with "rof"
(its kinda annoying to have hack PS! to search through room chat logs to see that something big like this is happening lol)

or

b) reverting the CURRENT change, and voting on the matter in about, say, 2 weeks, but keeping the posting on the forums for influence

either of these two would be a GREAT option and I actually feel that the second would be the best choice of action, but i'll take the first still.

either way, i still like the changes, just a bit disappointed about the sleep topic, but that's been talked about enough, i dont really have much to add.

(P.S: DEG you're a hero)

 

[The Immortal]

Regarding the "telling us ahead of time", I can't speak about the other council members but I never brought it up myself because we were voting on previous suspects only. So the community had already provided feedback on those Pokemon which we could look back at.

In fact, the council wanted to include more Pokemon in the voting, which I stopped them from doing because it would have been unfair to the community as you never got the chance to provide feedback on it. New suspects should and will follow the policy I mentioned above.

 

[motogp]

Hello.
It's time to...well...talk about Multiscale.

Multiscale halves the damage taken when the user has full health.
As we all know,Multiscale has only one user currently allowed in 1v1

Dragonite​

Dragonite by itself cannot by any means deemed broken.
It is 4 times weak to Ice,and weak to other common typings like Rock,Dragon and Fairy,and its stats aren't anything special either.
The only thing that could make it broken is its ability and the fact that Z-Moves are allowed

But motogp,why isn't Multiscale banned in 6v6?
Because 6v6 has 2 important features that differentiate entirely how the ability is used.
Stealth Rock
WIth Stealth Rock on the field,Multiscale is negated,and Dragonite loses 25% of its health upon switching.
Switch-ins
Dragonite switching into a potential attack means that Multiscale is no longer under effect.
In 1v1,you cannot set Stealth Rocks or force Dragonite to switch out and then back in,negating Multiscale.

But motogp,why didn't you post on Multiscale all that time.
Kyurem-Black,the best counter to Dragonite and the center of every counter argument got banned yesterday.

And now,let's compare Multiscale Dragonite and Inner Focus Dragonite to the rest of the Viability Rankings.
Disclaimer:I have seen a huge variety of Dragonite sets from time to time,so there might be some weird sets that help me prove my point better.
ML=Multiscale Loses
MW,IFL=Multiscale Wins,Inner Focus Loses
MW,IFW=Multiscale Wins,Inner Focus Wins

S

S Rank

Gyarados-Mega
ML

S-

S- Rank

Metagross-Mega
Weakness Policy can win,but not reliably so I'll just say ML for this one (Asuuming Metagross has Ice Punch)

Tapu Koko
Loses to Iron Defense+Roost,but other thatn that MW,IFL

A+

A+ Rank

Charizard-Mega-X
MW,IFL (Special Dragonium)

Magearna
MW,IFL (Choice Band)

Mimikyu
Rock Tomb+Flyinium wins so MW,IFL

A

A Rank

Charizard-Mega-Y
MW,IFW (most sets)

Landorus-Therian
MW,IFW (Special/Mixed)

Snorlax
MW,IFW (Choice Band Superpower)

Tapu Lele
MW,IFL (Choice Band Iron Tail)

Zygarde-Complete
MW,IFL if Dragonium Zygarde.

A-

A- Rank

Aegislash
MW,IFL (any set with Earthquake)

Genesect
MW,IFL (any set with Fire Punch)

Lopunny-Mega
Dragonite can EV to live Fake Out+Ice Punch,but probably it's just ML,IFW because it takes less EVs

Magnezone
MW,IFL (Any non-Choiced set with Earthquake or Superpower wins)

Mawile-Mega
Choice Specs Fire Blast wins,other than that you lose 90% of the time

Pinsir-Mega
Adamant is a guaranteed OHKO vs 252 HP Inner Focus,so MW,IFL

Porygon-Z
Choice Specs Blizzard OHKOs 252 HP,but other than that MW,IFL.

Slowbro-Mega
Choice Specs Thunder wins if you hit 2 of them (or 3 if they click Slack Off turn 1) but other than that it's pretty much ML

B+

B+ Rank

Aggron-Mega
Complicated matchup,let's just say MW,IFL

Blaziken
MW,IFW

Donphan
MW,IFL (Special,Inner Focus dies to Rockium)

Gardevoir-Mega
ML

Golem
Bulky Special can live a Z-Stone Edge and win,Inner Focus loses.

Greninja
Some very specific Dragonite sets can live Timid Choice Specs Ice Beam,but other than that ML

Jumpluff
ML

Naganadel
MW,IFL

Primarina
Baby-Doll Eyes beats physical variants,but Choice Specs or Electrium still wins,Inner Focus loses.

Tapu Fini
MW,IFL (Choice Band Thunder Punch)

Venusaur-Mega
MW,IFW (Flyinium)

B

B Rank

Altaria-Mega
Choice Specs can win.but it's usually a win for Altaria.

Chansey
Choice Band always loses to counter,Physical Flyinium or Dragonium can play around it with Dragon Dance but the roll is still unfavourable for Dragonite,and Chansey can click Reflect if they use Dragon Dance twice.

Ferrothorn
MW,IFW (Fire Punch variants)

Garchomp
MW,IFL

Heatran
MW,IFW if Choice Band Superpower.

Heracross-Mega
MW,IFW if fast Flyinium

Kartana
MW,IFW (252 HP Superpower/Fire Punch variants.

Meloetta
MW,IFL (Fast Physical)

Mew
Special can play around Kee Berry,but Icy Wind wins most of the time.

Necrozma
MW,IFL

Sableye-Mega
Entirely depends on Sableye guessing the correct set.

Sawk
MW,IFL (non-Choiced)

Tyranitar-Mega
MW,IFW (Fast Superpower variants)

B-

B- Rank

[/B]Blastoise-Mega
MW,IFW vs Counter/Coat if not choiced,ML vs offensive.

Blissey
MW,IFW with Choice Band Superpower.

Buzzwole
MW,IFW with max Speed Flyinium.

Carracosta
MW,IFL (Special)

Celesteela
Choice Specs Fire Blast or Thunder can win,otherwise it's pretty much a guaranteed loss.

Crustle
MW,IFL (Special)

Diancie-Mega
MW,IFL

Durant
MW,IFL

Gengar-Mega
MW,IFW

Hoopa-Unbound
Choice Band Ice Punch wins vs Inner Focus,stands no chance vs Multiscale.

Latios
MW,IFL

Swampert-Mega
Yawn/Protect/Outrage should win vs every set.

Terrakion
MW,IFL

Each person can make his own conclusions,but I firmly believe that Multiscale should be banned since it makes Dragonite beat a huge percentage of the metagame,and limits its counters to very few pokemon (9-10 counters in the entire VR up until B-,which means 10/57 Pokemon).
Furthermore,you can easily understand how Dragonite would gain many more counters if it didn't have it's ability Multiscale,so I'd like to propose a suspect test on Multiscale.I know suspecting an ability sounds a bit weird,but in this case,the problem is the Pokemon and not the ability.

 

[DEG]

Hello, I just got the right time to write a post so I'm going to clarify most points said in the thread, new points that haven't been brought up and my personal opinion as a council member. First of all, I fully understand the backlash that was started, I, at one point was in your spot before but in a different metagame. It was the ORAS Monotype council vote when they decided to remove type-bans and ban other Pokemon that already got suspected and the whole community attacked the council and I was in the community. I also never agreed with that decision made but as time passed we figured out later that it was a decision for the community as a whole, it was a decision that allowed the metagame to progress. Now for 1v1, if I was in the community spot I would also be annoyed and especially if i did the suspects before, wasted some time, got reqs and voted and in the end all gone to waste. But that's seeing the small details in the image without really looking at it as a whole being, as a whole form of art.

You see, the council never took the decision rashly, we discussed it ever sine day one, we envisaged all the outcomes, we envisaged the backlash and everything worked as we thought. The decision was made for different reasons, maybe they were stated or hidden but I'm going to go all over them again and I would advise you to read my post fully, and not comment some stupid stuff like tl;dr, because that won't move us forward. Macemaster has said it in a harsh (?) way, and TI said it in a sentence so allow me to develop the point about old suspects.

1) Old Suspects had a low income of voters; this is somewhat true and false. As an OM we are cursed with an amount of votes lower than other tiers and with us aiming for harder reqs we didn't get the number we wanted and don't tell me otherwise in this thread or somewhere else. I see people laughing at this point that 20+ voters is good for 1v1 but I wonder who kept PMing me and highlighting me telling that the reqs are hard and the number is so little. If you want to complain at least stay consistent. Do not disapprove that point now while all you did before was telling us that the number of votes are so low. Anyways, taking the elite of the 1v1 community by making the reqs hard didn't really work out, since that's not really the "elite***" due to people having a lot of time between their hands getting reqs. I'm not saying everyone is bad, but I'm saying not everyone that gets reqs is an elite player. This reduces even more the amount of players that are elites which isn't what we wanted, needed or are looking for. Everyone can ready a couple post on the thread (lol, there's none; ill get to this soon) during suspects and have a lot of free time and vote like this without even being an avid player, somewhere who cares about the metagame or anything else.

Additionally, the 60% voting was one of the best options we had since 50% isn't that representing of the community in most cases but the fact that we got little votes, and not a lot of elites players needed it was deemed flawed. 60% works better on a large amount of players but with reqs being hard and only people with a lot of time and some elites getting them backfired on us, on the numbers. We didn't completely override the suspect tests due to two different reasons.

a) Most suspects were months old, the Kyurem-Black suspect test was run through October, while the Jirachi suspect test was run through December. While this might not be ideal to run around another decision the numbers that were put in account were ideal. Kyurem-Black had a 51% pro-ban percentage and got a close pro-suspect percentage during pre-suspects which put it in range of a ban, now there's a reason why it didn't get banned and I'll say that in point 2. Meanwhile Jirachi evaded the ban with a 59% pro-ban in the last suspect and during the pre-suspect it also got a 55%~ pro-suspect which means that the general opinion of the room moved toward the bans but the sample of the community used wasn't as big to allow these numbers to be truly expressed.

b) People still complained in the room after the results, and that isn't a person or two but a whole lot of people which showed the general annoyance of the community about the suspect results. In a way it wasn't a direct override of old suspects, nor render them useless. It was a way to fix what was broken with the help of specialists. It was a way to move the metagame forward due to people not knowing why, or how to vote (this will also be detailed, in second point). In a way we didn't override the suspect tests but gave them a push, we didn't waste time and re-make another suspect test that would probably end either with a ban or in the 59%~ range then let the cycle restart again.

***Elite; is a player that fully knows and understand the 1v1 metagame. Plays 1v1 not only for the fun but for the competitive aspect and tournaments it brings. (CHECK POST BELOW)

2) A number of voters viewed the suspect tests in a completely flawed angle. There's a lot of voters that either voted because their favorite Pokemon lose to that specific Pokemon, because all of their teams have that Pokemon and were to lazy to re-build, they loved using that Pokemon, were too scared to vote ban or because they thought another Pokemon was more banworthy. Now I'm not saying ALL votes were like that but don't try to prove me wrong that A LOT of the votes were based on that. I even read that in the room in some occasions. Voting by using these as reasons is a flawed concept and should be addressed now before tomorrow. Voting such way does nothing but harm the metagame, doesn't let it move forward and just let it become stale or pushed it backward. There's two points that I want to comment on and show you what went wrong.

a) People were too scared to vote ban. This is mostly during the Kyurem-Black suspect test and in a minor way during the pre-suspect regarding Mega Gyarados. Yes, some people were just scared to vote ban on these Pokemon. Why? Because they thought a lot of threats would resurgence if these Pokemon ought to be banned. This was one big flaw that the voters fell in. They just started to overthinking to put it in simple words; "Sturdy Pokemon would be broken", "Mega Metagross would be insane" and more. We do not care about the future metagame, we do not base our votes on theories for that reason. A theory is a theory for a reason, we don't really know if they would be broken or not and if they would be we can still ban them. People being scared didn't let 1v1 develop into something they held into the fact that "Kyurem-Black is a glue to the metagame and without it would fall apart", but they didn't realise that Kyurem-Black was a poisonous glue (Speaking for the pro-ban side, I have another opinion on why it shouldn't have been banned so I'm not contradicting myself) that held the whole metagame together because it was truly overcentralizing. Also a Pokemon with that much power over the metagame is just not healthy for it to stay and that's where people failed to realized that. Adding that mentality with the fact that the number of voters were low shows us why it only reached 50% and nothing more.

b) They thought "Why would we ban this when something stronger is still allowed". This is where two opinions just collided together and confused the player. This was mostly during the Zygarde-C suspect test so I'll use that as example. Who told you that Kyurem-Black was broken or stronger than Zygarde-C, it was you, your previous opinion. It wasn't proved, it wasn't agreed upon. Users really did mix two of their opinions on two different Pokemon in just one suspect and like that decided that this is Zygarde-C is weaker than Kyurem-Black and voted no ban on Zygarde-C just for that reason and it got 58% which really proves alongside the low number of votes that the concept is flawed from its roots. For future reference you shouldn't compare two Pokemon together, you take each case alone and vote and later on if you think this Pokemon is also broken you post about it, this is how you build a healthy metagame and a healthy discussion.

There's more reasons as of why we were forced to take this decision and I guess Glyx and Yung Dramps already put out this point but I'll say again to justify our reason. And unlike Quantum Tesseract, GL Volkner, and DurzaOffTopic portrayed it we took the community as whole majority, as a whole entity, we did listen to the community but the community didn't listen to us. This is where it gets interesting and shows where the community went wrong and not only the council.

a) During previous suspect tests; see Kyurem-Black, Jirachi and Zygarde-Complete I went around the room, posted in the OP, and told people in PMs to please post on the thread and we got nothing. We got LITTLE to no posts in a time where the whole focus should be put IN the thread so you can show your opinion and did the community do that, no. The community didn't bother posting their opinion, didn't bother arguing on the thread and only got reqs and voted what they think is right. Now tell me, how can you reach a compromise, a solution and even give other players that have no idea what to vote, how can you make people that were on the other side of the line to come to your side? Simple, you can't. During a suspect tests there's two elements that should work together to get the results;

1) Community posting about their opinion, what they think is correct, why they think that Pokemon is broken, why they think it isn't so a discussion can be started, so people can start arguments, talk, whatever just to make the point clear to outsiders and to other community. But instead of doing so, we either got stupid one liners or other discussions, to the point where they even started to discuss Zekrom and Giratina-O in the middle of the Zygarde-C suspect, how do you expect a good decision to be made in the end if that happened, what community on Smogon does this? None. I personally had to announce on the 1v1 discord that all discussions about Zekrom and co should be stopped and they should post about Zygarde-C and to my surprise the discussion of Zekrom got more posts than the suspect itself in the end. Like yea, I cannot understand how a community as a whole can work together to eliminate a threat from the metagame if they work like this, you just can't. This was one of the biggest mistake that 1v1 fell in. This is where the community failed to show us that they care, this is where they were wrong and I see no one bringing this up here. The council did listen to the couple of posts that were on the thread but how can they know the rest? Do they just guess or beg everyone in PMs to tell them their opinion, this is just ridiculous.

2) Actually get the requirements and vote.

b) I, personally as a 1/5th of the council posted on different occasions that we're voting on a slate. I posted it on the thread here and also initiated discussion in that post. I also initiated discussionhere about z-moves so the council know what to do, and we listened, we didn't rashly quick ban or anything else. So all these stupid posts saying that the council doesn't or will not listen to the community are nothing but lies. I also personally posted in the 1v1 room about the council voting;

taken from 18th of February 2018

[13:42:40]

#deg: /announce The 1v1 council will have a voting slate soon, if you wish to express your opinion and not end up complaining and being annoyed at the decisions post here https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/1v1.3587523/

taken from 16th of February 2018

[13:42:36]

#deg: /announce The council will be holding some voting stuff to see banworthy elements in the metagame, so if you want your opinion to be heard post here http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/1v1.3587523/
[13:43:15] #deg: We're currently discussing zygarde-c, kyub, tapu koko and z-moves if you're interested

These are only two occasions where I posted in the room as a declare other than just hinting it while discussing in the room and in PMs. This is what everyone failed to say here that the council does care and I warned you guys and this wasn't a complete surprise nor us deleting the community from general opinion.

Removing suspect tests for the time being isn't a negative thing but can be a positive aspect covering what we lacked in previous suspects. We lacked discussion, we lacked posts and opinions. This is how we're going to get them. We removed you the bury of getting requirements so you can post freely about what you think is broken or problematic in the metagame. Don't tell me this is going to put people that aren't english speakers in a disadvantage. Even if you use the most broken form of English your point will get across so don't worry and we know the difference between memes and people that really can't make amazing posts. We thank you for understanding us and know that are always working for the good of the metagame and nothing else and will be working on improving our voting system and we will get back to you.

I also heard that this was taken outside the 1v1 community by some users I won't say what it is but just know that we work together as a 1v1 community and do not need an interference or people that are outside of the 1v1 community to understand us wrong since you really just explained it in your own words and made us look bad without putting others in context. Do not do that and never do that again you who posted it and others that planed to since I will be also responding in other ways. Thank you.

If anyone has a question feel free to PM me on Discord, or on Smogon. Now back to metagame discussion!

*I wanted to do a statistical study but this post is already long and I'm already late to the party didn't want to be even more late.
**Edit; this isn't the council decision but mine.
***Edit; ELITE part was misunderstood so I reexplained it in the post between

 

[DurzaOffTopic]

We do not care about the future metagame

First, before I respond to this entire post, I want to point out that yes, we can tell you don't care about the future of the metagame. No, this is not a fake log. I'm so incredibly disappointed in the content of this post its actually saddening.

You see, the council never took the decision rashly, we discussed it ever sine day one, we envisaged all the outcomes, we envisaged the backlash and everything worked as we thought. The decision was made for different reasons, maybe they were stated or hidden but I'm going to go all over them again and I would advise you to read my post fully, and not comment some stupid stuff like tl;dr, because that won't move us forward. Macemaster has said it in a harsh (?) way, and TI said it in a sentence so allow me to develop the point about old suspects.

Look, I can't speak for the entire 1v1 community, but to me, it was never really about the "harsh" way or any sort of tone that Macemaster put it in. No matter how you put it, if you form a "council" for the sole purpose of undoing community decisions, its gonna be the equivalent to a huge "fuck you". Honestly it seems to me like defenders are just scapegoating Macemaster's wording (yes, Glyx, yes, UC, yes, even Mace himself) as an excuse for a terrible decision.

1) Old Suspects had a low income of voters; this is somewhat true and false. As an OM we are cursed with an amount of votes lower than other tiers and with us aiming for harder reqs we didn't get the number we wanted and don't tell me otherwise in this thread or somewhere else. I see people laughing at this point that 20+ voters is good for 1v1 but I wonder who kept PMing me and highlighting me telling that the reqs are hard and the number is so little. If you want to complain at least stay consistent. Do not disapprove that point now while all you did before was telling us that the number of votes are so low.

Who are you even talking about here? This isn't relevant to most of us in my opinion, I'm competent enough to get reqs and most people are if they put in the work. Stop generalizing the whole community just for one bad person.

Anyways, taking the elite of the 1v1 community by making the reqs hard didn't really work out, since that's not really the "elite***" due to people having a lot of time between their hands getting reqs. I'm not saying everyone is bad, but I'm saying not everyone that gets reqs is an elite player. This reduces even more the amount of players that are elites which isn't what we wanted, needed or are looking for. Everyone can ready a couple post on the thread (lol, there's none; ill get to this soon) during suspects and have a lot of free time and vote like this without even being an avid player, somewhere who cares about the metagame or anything else.

Whats the incentive to do this if you don't care about the metagame? Nobody is forcing you to get reqs (council members who are directly involved with the future of the member didn't get them, and neither did I for that matter, though I have no obligation to as I am not tied to the tier in any way) and there is no Tiering Contributor badge making other people get reqs like it does in standard tiers, causing some controversy there as well. People who go out of their way to make time to get reqs clearly care about the metagame and the tier as a whole.

Additionally, the 60% voting was one of the best options we had since 50% isn't that representing of the community in most cases but the fact that we got little votes, and not a lot of elites players needed it was deemed flawed. 60% works better on a large amount of players but with reqs being hard and only people with a lot of time and some elites getting them backfired on us, on the numbers. We didn't completely override the suspect tests due to two different reasons.

This is not justification by any means. You're saying that you should have changed the cutoff to fit the "elite"'s ideal result of the suspect. The whole point of setting a barline at 60% is that you keep it there. While it may not seem so drastic, it's actually setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. Reqs cutoff was normally 60 and it reached it at say 62%, but you didn't like it. "Oh, we should have made this a supermajority 66.6% (2/3) cutoff so therefore the suspect is invalid, our mistake so now we can just reverse it." This is really pathetic to me because you're literally saying the percent needed to pass a motion is flawed because you are not happy with the result.

a) Most suspects were months old, the Kyurem-Black suspect test was run through October, while the Jirachi suspect test was run through December. While this might not be ideal to run around another decision the numbers that were put in account were ideal. Kyurem-Black had a 51% pro-ban percentage and got a close pro-suspect percentage during pre-suspects which put it in range of a ban, now there's a reason why it didn't get banned and I'll say that in point 2. Meanwhile Jirachi evaded the ban with a 59% pro-ban in the last suspect and during the pre-suspect it also got a 55%~ pro-suspect which means that the general opinion of the room moved toward the bans but the sample of the community used wasn't as big to allow these numbers to be truly expressed.

Again it line with the previous point, but it is unheard of for a retest to be made in such a short period of time, much less a council reversal.

b) People still complained in the room after the results, and that isn't a person or two but a whole lot of people which showed the general annoyance of the community about the suspect results. In a way it wasn't a direct override of old suspects, nor render them useless. It was a way to fix what was broken with the help of specialists. It was a way to move the metagame forward due to people not knowing why, or how to vote (this will also be detailed, in second point). In a way we didn't override the suspect tests but gave them a push, we didn't waste time and re-make another suspect test that would probably end either with a ban or in the 59%~ range then let the cycle restart again.

Thats how it's gonna happen. People are going to be happy with a decision or not. You're not going to see verbal appraisal of suspects after the fact because people only say things when they are complaining. If something annoys people who wanted something banned, you'll see it a lot because people actually complain when they don't like something. I thought this would be obvious.

***Elite; is a player that fully knows and understand the 1v1 metagame. Plays 1v1 not only for the fun but for the competitive aspect and tournaments it brings.

This is garbage and disrespectful as fuck oh my god. You refer to yourselves as "elite" multiple times during this post before defining yourselves as the only ones who fully know and understand the 1v1 metagame. Again, why do you feel the need to insist that the 'elite', who are determined by the "elite", have some type of knowledge unavailable to the rest of us? We all play the same metagame with the same rules. I'm glad you know a divide exists between the best and the rest so to speak. I'm just saying I think you're needlessly reinforcing it with your words.

2) A number of voters viewed the suspect tests in a completely flawed angle. There's a lot of voters that either voted because their favorite Pokemon lose to that specific Pokemon, because all of their teams have that Pokemon and were to lazy to re-build, they loved using that Pokemon, were too scared to vote ban or because they thought another Pokemon was more banworthy. Now I'm not saying ALL votes were like that but don't try to prove me wrong that A LOT of the votes were based on that. I even read that in the room in some occasions. Voting by using these as reasons is a flawed concept and should be addressed now before tomorrow. Voting such way does nothing but harm the metagame, doesn't let it move forward and just let it become stale or pushed it backward. There's two points that I want to comment on and show you what went wrong.

If you really want to move to a more well defined, objectively healthier suspecting process you need to accept that every vote carries some sort of bias whether it comes from a council member, myself, a guy that started playing yesterday etc. If you are willing to work on that and eliminate the bias from the votes, that will lead you to a clear, beneficial result, whether the people that are voting are 6 or 3006.

a) People were too scared to vote ban. This is mostly during the Kyurem-Black suspect test and in a minor way during the pre-suspect regarding Mega Gyarados. Yes, some people were just scared to vote ban on these Pokemon. Why? Because they thought a lot of threats would resurgence if these Pokemon ought to be banned. This was one big flaw that the voters fell in. They just started to overthinking to put it in simple words; "Sturdy Pokemon would be broken", "Mega Metagross would be insane" and more. We do not care about the future metagame, we do not base our votes on theories for that reason. A theory is a theory for a reason, we don't really know if they would be broken or not and if they would be we can still ban them. People being scared didn't let 1v1 develop into something they held into the fact that "Kyurem-Black is a glue to the metagame and without it would fall apart", but they didn't realise that Kyurem-Black was a poisonous glue (Speaking for the pro-ban side, I have another opinion on why it shouldn't have been banned so I'm not contradicting myself) that held the whole metagame together because it was truly overcentralizing. Also a Pokemon with that much power over the metagame is just not healthy for it to stay and that's where people failed to realized that. Adding that mentality with the fact that the number of voters were low shows us why it only reached 50% and nothing more.

Talk about bad wording. Christ.
Why is this not a valid form of reasoning? Why is Kyurem-Black so "overcentralizing"? Does the root of the problem originate with Kyurem-B? I don't think so. Kyurem is the definition of a Pokemon that is used to adapt to a metagame where abilities that allow Pokemon to survive any hit (Sturdy, Disguise, etc.) are extremely powerful. So is Sturdy the root of the problem? Why do people use Sturdy? Power creep in Z moves? I'm not saying any of this is true, its just a stupid reason to ban something based on "overcentralization", It's a stupid term. It's one thing if something is overcentralizing around its effectiveness vs a certain playstyle, but that doesn't apply to 1v1.

b) They thought "Why would we ban this when something stronger is still allowed". This is where two opinions just collided together and confused the player. This was mostly during the Zygarde-C suspect test so I'll use that as example. Who told you that Kyurem-Black was broken or stronger than Zygarde-C, it was you, your previous opinion. It wasn't proved, it wasn't agreed upon. Users really did mix two of their opinions on two different Pokemon in just one suspect and like that decided that this is Zygarde-C is weaker than Kyurem-Black and voted no ban on Zygarde-C just for that reason and it got 58% which really proves alongside the low number of votes that the concept is flawed from its roots. For future reference you shouldn't compare two Pokemon together, you take each case alone and vote and later on if you think this Pokemon is also broken you post about it, this is how you build a healthy metagame and a healthy discussion.

You're literally basing half of your arguments around the "fact" (from your perspective) that both Jirachi and Kyurem-B are "objectively" unhealthy for the metagame, before saying that our opinions are not agreed upon and are not proved. Hypocritical garbage.

There's more reasons as of why we were forced to take this decision and I guess Glyx and Yung Dramps already put out this point but I'll say again to justify our reason. And unlike Quantum Tesseract, GL Volkner, and DurzaOffTopic portrayed it we took the community as whole majority, as a whole entity, we did listen to the community but the community didn't listen to us. This is where it gets interesting and shows where the community went wrong and not only the council.

a) During previous suspect tests; see Kyurem-Black, Jirachi and Zygarde-Complete I went around the room, posted in the OP, and told people in PMs to please post on the thread and we got nothing. We got LITTLE to no posts in a time where the whole focus should be put IN the thread so you can show your opinion and did the community do that, no. The community didn't bother posting their opinion, didn't bother arguing on the thread and only got reqs and voted what they think is right. Now tell me, how can you reach a compromise, a solution and even give other players that have no idea what to vote, how can you make people that were on the other side of the line to come to your side? Simple, you can't. During a suspect tests there's two elements that should work together to get the results;

1) Community posting about their opinion, what they think is correct, why they think that Pokemon is broken, why they think it isn't so a discussion can be started, so people can start arguments, talk, whatever just to make the point clear to outsiders and to other community. But instead of doing so, we either got stupid one liners or other discussions, to the point where they even started to discuss Zekrom and Giratina-O in the middle of the Zygarde-C suspect, how do you expect a good decision to be made in the end if that happened, what community on Smogon does this? None. I personally had to announce on the 1v1 discord that all discussions about Zekrom and co should be stopped and they should post about Zygarde-C and to my surprise the discussion of Zekrom got more posts than the suspect itself in the end. Like yea, I cannot understand how a community as a whole can work together to eliminate a threat from the metagame if they work like this, you just can't. This was one of the biggest mistake that 1v1 fell in. This is where the community failed to show us that they care, this is where they were wrong and I see no one bringing this up here. The council did listen to the couple of posts that were on the thread but how can they know the rest? Do they just guess or beg everyone in PMs to tell them their opinion, this is just ridiculous.

I'll repeat this:
A strong argument doesn't correlate with how the meta feels when something is broken. A guy could say "yes Kyurem was broken because it was strong." and you would call him an idiot even though he is correct and then disenfranchise him. At the end of the day, it's not opinions that get things banned, it's how people feel when they play against it. People who get reqs go through 70 games against something and can obviously tell its broken, they just can't put it into words.

It was never a requirement that the other voters post their opinion and now you're saying they can't vote because their opinions weren't good enough? What? You're saying they failed in a requirement that didn't even exist. Incredible.

2) Actually get the requirements and vote.

b) I, personally as a 1/5th of the council posted on different occasions that we're voting on a slate. I posted it on the thread here and also initiated discussion in that post. I also initiated discussionhere about z-moves so the council know what to do, and we listened, we didn't rashly quick ban or anything else. So all these stupid posts saying that the council doesn't or will not listen to the community are nothing but lies. I also personally posted in the 1v1 room about the council voting;

taken from 18th of February 2018

taken from 16th of February 2018

These are only two occasions where I posted in the room as a declare other than just hinting it while discussing in the room and in PMs. This is what everyone failed to say here that the council does care and we (I) warned you guys and this wasn't a complete surprise nor us deleting the community from general opinion.

Removing suspect tests for the time being isn't a negative thing but can be a positive aspect covering what we lacked in previous suspects. We lacked discussion, we lacked posts and opinions. This is how we're going to get them. We removed you the bury of getting requirements so you can post freely about what you think is broken or problematic in the metagame. Don't tell me this is going to put people that aren't english speakers in a disadvantage. Even if you use the most broken form of English your point will get across so don't worry and we know the difference between memes and people that really can't make amazing posts. We thank you for understanding us and know that are always working for the good of the metagame and nothing else and will be working on improving our voting system and we will get back to you.

Again, god damn, It was never a requirement that the voters post their opinion in the threat and now you're saying their vote is invalid because their opinions weren't good enough? What? You're saying they failed in a requirement that didn't even exist.

Half the council didn't get reqs themselves either. Really showing us we're being led by people who care about the metagame. If people who do vote apparently don't care about the metagame, what about the people who don't?

I also heard that this was taken outside the 1v1 community by some users I won't say what it is but just know that we work together as a 1v1 community and do not need an interference or people that are outside of the 1v1 community to understand us wrong since you really just explained it in your own words and made us look bad without putting others in context. Do not do that and never do that again you who posted it and others that planed to since I will be also responding in other ways. Thank you.

I didn't do this myself, but this is hilarious because there is no way to possibly take this out of context. You guys made a irrational and frankly stupid decision and now you want us to not tell anybody because it'll be "taken out of context". Refusal to admit the mistake too. Great way to make 1v1 be taken less seriously than it already is.

I tried to make this post sound as least condescending as I could make it, but I'm extremely disappointed and disgusted by hearing excuses or attempts at justification like this from the Tier Leader.

edit:
[12:27 PM] deg: What is true is always insulting
[12:27 PM] deg: Im sorry

this is your 1v1 TL folks

edit 2:
[12:30:08] #deg: You dont even play the tier
[12:30:09] #deg: Oml

apparently my points are all invalid because i don't play the tier on a competitive tour scene anymore like I used to and only play it casually now

edit 3:
[12:33:22] #deg: What
[12:33:23] #deg: Lmfaoo
[12:33:38] #deg: I also do love people translating my post wrong

lmfaooo u seem pretty happy rn

 

[DEG]

First, before I respond to this entire post, I want to point out that yes, we can tell you don't care about the future of the metagame. No, this is not a fake log. I'm so incredibly disappointed in the content of this post its actually saddening.

I also love when you take a quote out of context and just put it here. That phrase means that we are not banning something in the present metagame while worrying on the future of the metagame. Everything comes chronologically, we do not care about the future while in the present.

Look, I can't speak for the entire 1v1 community, but to me, it was never really about the "harsh" way or any sort of tone that Macemaster put it in. No matter how you put it, if you form a "council" for the sole purpose of undoing community decisions, its gonna be the equivalent to a huge "fuck you". Honestly it seems to me like defenders are just scapegoating Macemaster's wording (yes, Glyx, yes, UC, yes, even Mace himself) as an excuse for a terrible decision.

There's no need to write a whole reply to the smallest detail in the post, that's what I read in the room yesterday. That's what I responded too. Thank you.

Who are you even talking about here? This isn't relevant to most of us in my opinion, I'm competent enough to get reqs and most people are if they put in the work. Stop generalizing the whole community just for one bad person.
Whats the incentive to do this if you don't care about the metagame? Nobody is forcing you to get reqs (council members who are directly involved with the future of the member didn't get them, and neither did I for that matter, though I have no obligation to as I am not tied to the tier in any way) and there is no Tiering Contributor badge making other people get reqs like it does in standard tiers, causing some controversy there as well. People who go out of their way to make time to get reqs clearly care about the metagame and the tier as a whole.

My man if it was only for one person I wouldn't have put it in here. I know what I'm talking about and I'm not generalizing the whole community, in all my post I said some, I never said all. You're also comprehending things wrong, I'm not saying that people that do not care about the community does the suspect. I'm saying that SOME people that does the suspects is just because of bad mindset, they just vote cause they love using that Pokemon and stuff.

This is not justification by any means. You're saying that you should have changed the cutoff to fit the "elite"'s ideal result of the suspect. The whole point of setting a barline at 60% is that you keep it there. While it may not seem so drastic, it's actually setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. Reqs cutoff was normally 60 and it reached it at say 62%, but you didn't like it. "Oh, we should have made this a supermajority 66.6% (2/3) cutoff so therefore the suspect is invalid, our mistake so now we can just reverse it." This is really pathetic to me because you're literally saying the percent needed to pass a motion is flawed because you are not happy with the result.
Again it line with the previous point, but it is unheard of for a retest to be made in such a short period of time, much less a council reversal.
Thats how it's gonna happen. People are going to be happy with a decision or not. You're not going to see verbal appraisal of suspects after the fact because people only say things when they are complaining. If something annoys people who wanted something banned, you'll see it a lot because people actually complain when they don't like something. I thought this would be obvious.
This is garbage and disrespectful as fuck oh my god. You refer to yourselves as "elite" multiple times during this post before defining yourselves as the only ones who fully know and understand the 1v1 metagame. Again, why do you feel the need to insist that the 'elite', who are determined by the "elite", have some type of knowledge unavailable to the rest of us? We all play the same metagame with the same rules. I'm glad you know a divide exists between the best and the rest so to speak. I'm just saying I think you're needlessly reinforcing it with your words.

This is where it all blew up and it was just because of bad wording. English is my third language, I learnt that from the internet, from me playing games so excuse me as I explain better. First off, if you're saying that I didn't like the suspect result you're totally wrong, if you back where Macemaster posted the result I was the only one that was happy with the Kyurem-Black's results so you can't bring me in all this when saying that I wasn't happy with the results. As I explained with math and logic, it wasn't a direct council override but an indirect if you want to make it seem that way. I explained that the numbers ranged everytime between 50 and 59% which with a small sample isn't idealistic because the margin of error is bigger than with the big sampling. If we're taking in accounts margin of error, Jirachi needed to go. I do not agree with Kyurem-Black so I can't defend it without looking like a clown.

Again, you understood "Elite" wrong due to my bad wording. There are 3 categories of players, The Elite, The Good, and The Bad. In every suspect test you have the good people getting the most reqs then the elites to end with the bad. Which shows that The Good people influences the most on suspect test. Now, what are good people? Good People are the players that do not let their feelings gain control during a suspect test, which means they are affected by their teams, the way they play and everything. There's lot of good players I respect and deserve to have a vote but the fact that its weighted the most isn't flawless. Also if people really took time and posted on the thread the Good players would really have time to think and change their votes accordingly but you don't see a lot of posts here so the good players follow their emotions more, and I've seen a lot of people, I'm familiar with the 1v1 community but I'm not saying names in public, if you care PM me. Meanwhile The Elite which aren't weighted that much look at the 1v1 metagame in a different angle, they do it logically and are more into the competitive aspect of the metagame. Now, if suspect tests had more votes or more posts that wouldn't be a problem. You seriously took this all out and made me look bad instead of PMing me and asking me what I really meant. I'd like to offer a public apology to everyone I have hurt and thought I meant that they are bad.

I'll repeat this:
A strong argument doesn't correlate with how the meta feels when something is broken. A guy could say "yes Kyurem was broken because it was strong." and you would call him an idiot even though he is correct and then disenfranchise him. At the end of the day, it's not opinions that get things banned, it's how people feel when they play against it. People who get reqs go through 70 games against something and can obviously tell its broken, they just can't put it into words.

It was never a requirement that the other voters post their opinion and now you're saying they can't vote because their opinions weren't good enough? What? You're saying they failed in a requirement that didn't even exist. Incredible.
Again, god damn, It was never a requirement that the voters post their opinion in the threat and now you're saying their vote is invalid because their opinions weren't good enough? What? You're saying they failed in a requirement that didn't even exist.

Half the council didn't get reqs themselves either. Really showing us we're being led by people who care about the metagame. If people who do vote apparently don't care about the metagame, what about the people who don't?

Why would you post a strong argument if you don't know your thing. How would it even be strong if you don't know it. Even if you got reqs in 70 games there's lot of games that you didn't face that Pokemon or you don't know what it does if it was banned from the suspect.
Again you're also understanding wrong, I never said that they can't vote I said that it doesn't make the suspect test good, it makes it worse. What is a suspect test if you can't discuss and give your opinion about the matter. A suspect test is the exchange of ideas.
I can't say you're wrong when you said that half the council didn't get reqs but for me I can say that I had no time and I didn't know the metagame well so I didn't want my vote to influence the final verdict that's why I didn't even do them, I know that I won't be able to give my full metagame experience so I just moved away from it and I didn't complain about the results. Everything's chill.

I didn't do this myself, but this is hilarious because there is no way to possibly take this out of context. You guys made a irrational and frankly stupid decision and now you want us to not tell anybody because it'll be "taken out of context". Refusal to admit the mistake too. Great way to make 1v1 be taken less seriously than it already is.

I tried to make this post sound as least condescending as I could make it, but I'm extremely disappointed and disgusted by hearing excuses or attempts at justification like this from the Tier Leader.

Looks like you didn't hear about what happened, if you need info hit me up.

edit:
[12:27 PM] deg: What is true is always insulting
[12:27 PM] deg: Im sorry

this is your 1v1 TL folks

edit 2:
[12:30:08] #deg: You dont even play the tier
[12:30:09] #deg: Oml

apparently my points are all invalid because i don't play the tier on a competitive tour scene anymore like I used to and only play it casually now

edit 3:
[12:33:22] #deg: What
[12:33:23] #deg: Lmfaoo
[12:33:38] #deg: I also do love people translating my post wrong

lmfaooo u seem pretty happy rn

Hmm, what do you want me to respond after a personal attack in the 1v1 chat? Look man, I'm don't hate you nor know you personally but I was defending myself.

We should all work together to create a better metagame, let's stop attacking eachother like seriously we're not winning anything from that, we're just losing. The council got it, you hated the decision, there's plenty of time no one's killing 1v1. Wrong decision? We can revert it. More broken Pokemon? We can ban them. Z-moves were the broken ones? Sure, we will visit that! Seriously it's not the end of the world. I really love and respect your passion guys but that's too much.

 

[PenguinKnees]

I want to respond to a few things DEG said in the post above. The first thing is how he "notified" us beforehand. Technically, you did. However, since it was posted in the 1v1 ROOM and not discord, very few people were able to see it. This seems like a blatant cop-out as not everyone is on at 1:45 on a Sunday. And while I agree the community is also heavily at fault, I think portraying the council as victims is counterproductive. The criticism is deserved as there was a mistake made. Id also like to respond to the point that " Removing suspect tests, for the time being, isn't a negative thing but can be a positive aspect covering what we lacked in previous suspects. We lacked discussion, we lacked posts and opinions. This is how we're going to get them." Yes, making a huge, unpopular decision will get the community to discuss. But if you thought that the community needed to participate more is revoking the decisions they've made the best way to do it? If you want to encourage discussion then make an announcement on the discord. (where most people can see the announcements.) I have a great deal of respect for the council with players who I've known for a while like Uc and Mace. However, I'm disappointed in this first showing. I hope you guys can rebound from this and continue to make our community great.

 

[Fardin]

I can't say you're wrong when you said that half the council didn't get reqs but for me I can say that I had no time and I didn't know the metagame well so I didn't want my vote to influence the final verdict that's why I didn't even do them, I know that I won't be able to give my full metagame experience so I just moved away from it and I didn't complain about the results. Everything's chill.

i dont wanna sound rude at all but, if u dont play ur tier and don't know the current metagame..why r u even in the council. having people who keep up with 1v1 instead of people who have been around a long time would be much better for the meta

 

[Yhwach]

i dont wanna sound rude at all but, if u dont play ur tier and don't know the current metagame..why r u even in the council. having people who keep up with 1v1 instead of people who have been around a long time would be much better for the meta

He has more experience than most of the people who voted and he still plays a decent amount lol, and the sheer amount of work he puts into 1v1 is why he's in the council, so don't randomly but into a discussion to attack him, or any council member, deg has done a fuckload more for 1v1 than pretty much anyone else on this site.

 

[Fardin]

He has more experience than most of the people who voted and he still plays a decent amount lol, and the sheer amount of work he puts into 1v1 is why he's in the council, so don't randomly but into a discussion to attack him, or any council member, deg has done a fuckload more for 1v1 than pretty much anyone else on this site.

yh that is fair. he still plays a decent amount which is the only good argument imo. Contributing a lot and having experience from the past is amazing, but it does not have much to do with being in the council if u dont know the current tier. as u said, he contributed a fuck ton which earned him a badge. that is what u get for contributing, not a free seat in the council. now, im not talking about deg anymore cause i was obv wrong about him, but more to the others. if you're thinking that im talking about u rn, ur probs right