Metagame 1v1 Metagame Discussion

[DEG]

The unhealthy 3 in terms of teambuilding (imo):
mixed LO hoopa band hoopa specs hoopa, custap hoopa, super annoying to cover when not using very bulky very strong attackers. How broken this feels depends on ur landorus t and ursaluna usage.
not the most broken pokemon but I just think that we don't have enough counters mathematically for it to be healthy - definitely meta warping. I also believe that the last suspect for it was extremely scuffed and that it deserves a resuspect to get real results, not "sorry we forgot to include vital details about the suspect, anyways on with other stuff"
this mon lives literally everything and has basically no bad set. Balloon is broken, maranga is broken, max defense is broken, etc. Most egregious pokemon imo, strongly in favor of a suspect on this one.

I would have loved a Regidrago suspect before World Cup but can't do anything about that. I still support a Regidrago suspect for the aforementioned reasons but I'd rather see a survey after wc pools and not an outright suspect. In my book, Regidrago is like the most unhealthy element right now, then Pecharunt then Hoopa-U even though the last two have a good amount of checks unlike Regidrago.

As I mentioned in the VR post and on Discord, I don't really see Hoopa-U as very problematic even if you don't spam Landorus-T and Ursaluna. Even then, I feel like Hoopa-U can also circumvent both of these "checks" too lol. The annoying part of Hoopa-U is that its ambiguous for both players on preview. It can technically beat and lose to a lot of Pokemon including things like Luna, Volcarona, Valiant, Corviknight, Lando-T, Meow, Bolt, Wellspring, Hoodra, Haxorus, Shifu... that's like the funny part it can tech everything and everything can tech it back so its actually annoying asf on preview to pick and to play against.

Pecharunt I'm not too with or against, counterplay exists and a lot of them are already high ranked Pokemon, plus we have like items like Clear Amulet and Covert Cloak. Both aren't _niche_ options since they also have outside usage. It's a reaaaally good Pokemon that must be accounted and given a lot of attention in the builder but I don't feel it has crossed the unhealthy/broken line yet.

Good post! I also do believe there's many techs/sets to explore in SV. However we must Regidrago suspect as soon as possible cause I believe it restricts it a lot.

 

[bellchime]

We have a council now and that's really good but I'm sorta going back on the entire "we should ban Regidrago" right now. I do think Regidrago is very much an uncompetitive Pokemon, and that it should end up getting banned, but I don't think that time is now, when we have Pokemon that I see as broken running around.


Iron Crown's finally getting more use than just the Weakness Policy set, even though that set on its own was incredibly strong. Booster Energy: Special Attack sets are incredibly good right now, and complement the Weakness Policy sets extremely well. There's also some other sets like Booster Energy: Speed, Booster Energy: Defense, Specially Defensive Weakness Policy, and Assault Vest that need to be accounted for in builder. Overall, there's just not that much in terms of reliable counterplay to Iron Crown, especially since setguessing can be a bit challenging due to how many matchups each set can just win with Tachyon Cutter.

I'm not going into detail too much given I'd rather be reading some manga rn or cleaning my apartment or smth, but a look at the VR can probably tell you how many matchups this Pokemon can cover with juts a few sets.

 

[crow crumbs]

Hi everyone, I made a long overdue SV 1v1 tiermaker for pvrs and such. I featured all the mons on the vr (except some real gutter trash, sorry Umbreon) and a few historic mons.


https://tiermaker.com/create/sv-1v1-viability-rankings-17022761

Enjoy!

 

[Elo Bandit]

Regidrago is unhealthy and should be suspected because it has a distinct lack of real counters. Even Fairy-types have to run specific sets to avoid cheese from Regidrago's arsenal. Choice Band or Weakness Policy boosted Earthquake, Thunder Fang, Giga Impact, Dragon Dance, Reflect, and Light Screen alongside a Dragon's Maw STAB allows Regidrago to flip almost any check or counter while maintaining its core matchups. I struggle to find any non-Fairy type (does Scarf PR Meowscarada count?) that consistently beats all Regidrago sets.

 

[DEG]

The decision not to suspect Regidrago during the recent council vote highlights a concerning disconnect between the council and the community. This is setting a dangerous precedent that risks diminishing community engagement and motivation over time. As council members, it is crucial to vote with a perspective that prioritizes the community's input—specifically through DNS/S (Do Not Suspect/Suspect) rather than DNB/B (Do Not Ban/Ban). I strongly believe the vote reflected more of a Ban/DNB approach.

The community has shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, as evidenced by posts on this thread and in the OTR (with a 12-4 vote in favor of suspect, 2 out of the were 4 council members). Given this, it is important that the community receives transparent reasoning behind the decisions made. Specifically, it would be helpful to know who voted DNS, along with the rationale for their decision to go against the majority of community sentiment.

Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion. Such a comment is concerning, as it undermines the principles of collaboration and accountability that should guide the council’s actions. It is essential for council members to listen to and engage with the community, as their feedback is critical in making informed decisions that reflect the broader player base.

 

[RADU]

it is crucial to vote with a perspective that prioritizes the community's input

The OTR thread and vote itself happened because of the community's input, but whether we vote for Suspect or Do Not Suspect on a certain Pokemon should not be a given simply based on the fact that some people were loudly requesting a Regidrago suspect. I'll highlight:

(with a 12-4 vote in favor of suspect)

This is not a roompoll, this is not a survey, this is not a poll, and that's what some people got wrong about the OTR thread. Posts with "Yeah I want a suspect on Regidrago" are only meaningful to a certain extent. I will only speak for myself, but my outlook on Regidrago this whole time was based around this statement in the Tiering Policy Framework

Overall Goal and Purpose of Tiering Policy:

I.) To create a metagame that is conducive to the more "skilled" player winning over the less "skilled" player a majority of the time.

II.) To ensure that both our ladder and tournament crowds are catered to regarding I.)

III.) To ensure that actions are taken with appropriate and complete justification.

In my personal opinion, a Regidrago suspect was not appropriately or completely justified.
I made my post in OTR thread 2 days in (12 days before the OTR deadline) that stated specifically that the justification for drago ban was not nearly sufficient to warrant metagame action, as it was mostly based on "I feel this" or "I think that" with no real analysis or proof or overall strong attempt at demonstrating the unhealthiness on drago. The posts that followed were:

Short non-conclusive pro ban post by DreamPrince (who is not really a qualified member of the playerbase and also showcased false information such as corviknight losing to specs drago)
Short dnb post by bo_bobson27 (while technically pro suspect I don't agree with the line of reasoning of "enough people want it", you either think the pokemon is broken enough to be suspected or not, you shouldn't cave in to peer pressure)
Short do not suspect post by bern
elo bandit post talking about reflect and light screen (what)
on the fence post by lost heros, leaning towards suspect/ban, with some statistical analysis about wc usage by type which ended up being inconclusive when compared to usage by type of prior tours
short non-conclusive dnb post by lumi
banter between tom numbers and various users
lost heros argument for a retest (the prior regidrago test was not a factor in the dns vote)
neomon completely neutral post on replay analysis and tiering policy

To reiterate, after making it abundantly clear that the current posts in the OTR thread were not enough basis to argue for a suspect (and as a reminder, the side attempting to change the status quo HAS to bring forward appropriate justification) not one singular eloquent post attempting to justify how regidrago deserved to be suspected/banned has happened. I don't know how you ever wanted me to change my mind.

Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion.

This was a tongue-in-cheek joke, obviously we care. The reality of the fact is that suspects do not get decided via raising of hands, and that saying you want something to be suspected is not enough for a suspect to actually happen.
Council does not exist as a means of transforming a bunch of vocal posts into action, Council exists to make sure action take is completely justified. Regidrago wasn't, or at least that's what 50% of the Council thought.

 

[DEG]

The OTR thread and vote itself happened because of the community's input, but whether we vote for Suspect or Do Not Suspect on a certain Pokemon should not be a given simply based on the fact that some people were loudly requesting a Regidrago suspect. I'll highlight:

This is not a roompoll, this is not a survey, this is not a poll, and that's what some people got wrong about the OTR thread. Posts with "Yeah I want a suspect on Regidrago" are only meaningful to a certain extent. I will only speak for myself, but my outlook on Regidrago this whole time was based around this statement in the Tiering Policy Framework

There seems to be a clear disconnect here. The OTR was ineffective, to put it bluntly—it essentially mirrored this thread and ultimately achieved nothing after the majority voiced their concerns. Does the Council believe the community will remain engaged and take the OTR seriously after this experience? If the Council views itself as the final authority, will the community still feel motivated to participate in discussions or voice their opinions, especially if it’s not about an obvious, broken Pokémon? This situation risks marginalizing controversial topics and could lead to a decreased interest in future discussions.

Council does not exist as a means of transforming a bunch of vocal posts into action, Council exists to make sure action take is completely justified. Regidrago wasn't, or at least that's what 50% of the Council thought.

This is a tricky stance to take. What justifies the Council’s decision to act, especially when it concerns a high-ranked Pokémon that has been a focal point for months, coupled with recent discussions and complaints overwhelmingly in favor of a suspect test? Shutting down the Regidrago suspect feels dismissive of the community's voice, which can come across as elitist. The Council’s role is to guide new users, helping them focus on the Pokémon itself rather than individual moves, and to prevent loud, impulsive requests for Pokémon like Walking Wake or Corviknight to be suspected. The Council is meant to lead the conversation, fostering a more structured and thoughtful discussion rather than allowing random, chaotic discussion. It seems that in this case, the Council might have struggled to balance responding to community concerns and forcing their own decisions, as shown by the unexpected introduction of the Iron Crown discussion and the blocking of the Regidrago suspect.

If the next survey gauges the community’s willingness to suspect Regidrago, will the Council block it again, or will they proceed with it? If they plan to move forward, why was this particular one blocked? It’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind this decision. Or will Regidrago be excluded from the survey entirely, with the justification that “we’ve already gone through it”? Whether the potential Regidrago suspect ultimately results in a ban or a DNB, and whether it would be ethically appropriate to resuspect it in a few months if it isn't banned, isn’t the central issue right now. The real issue is straightforward: the community is in favor of a Regidrago suspect, so the Council should listen and give the community the suspect test they’ve requested.

 

[lost heros]

The decision not to suspect Regidrago during the recent council vote highlights a concerning disconnect between the council and the community. This is setting a dangerous precedent that risks diminishing community engagement and motivation over time. As council members, it is crucial to vote with a perspective that prioritizes the community's input—specifically through DNS/S (Do Not Suspect/Suspect) rather than DNB/B (Do Not Ban/Ban). I strongly believe the vote reflected more of a Ban/DNB approach.

The community has shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, as evidenced by posts on this thread and in the OTR (with a 12-4 vote in favor of suspect, 2 out of the were 4 council members). Given this, it is important that the community receives transparent reasoning behind the decisions made. Specifically, it would be helpful to know who voted DNS, along with the rationale for their decision to go against the majority of community sentiment.

Additionally, I was informed that a council member stated in the Discord that they do not care about the community's opinion. Such a comment is concerning, as it undermines the principles of collaboration and accountability that should guide the council’s actions. It is essential for council members to listen to and engage with the community, as their feedback is critical in making informed decisions that reflect the broader player base.

I think we are massively overstating the "disconnect" between the council and the community.

The community by and large has NOT shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, and this has been a consistent lie told by very vocal people who want Regidrago gone.


Let's look at surveys shall we? Post PL we had this one. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-1.3743520/#post-10131506. Clearly showed that a majority of players and a majority of qualified players did not believe Drago needed immediate action. Then there was this one: While a Majority of players did call for a vote, I would not all this "overwhelming" and then https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-2.3749839/#post-10247361 which, while more people thought Drago was actionable, was still not significantly over a 3/5, and showed that qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large.

Due to the first survey, council at the time decided to suspect Regidrago. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/dragon-soul-regidrago-suspect.3744257/, which despite its flaws did result in a DNB with only 54% of voters voting ban (accounting for mishlef's abstain into his wanted vote of DNB).

And yet! The pro-Drago ban crowd continues to say "it's what the community wants", DESPITE many community members coming out and speaking against it repeatedly, or are we ignoring posts like this one and this one? It's gotten so bad that people who argue that Drago is fine, with very good points sometimes, still feel the need to qualify their posts and say "well it's what the community wants so I guess we have too..." (see bo's post above or Lumii's post here).

Don't get me wrong. I think a. Regidrago deserved a re-test, b. should probably be banned, and c. a majority of people probably agree with me. However, I do not think the council is actively twirling their mustaches and saying "screw the will of the people hahahhahahahah". Quite frankly, Regidrago is a hard pokemon to talk about. It's so incredibly linear, and its counters so naturally fit on teams regardless of Regidrago's presence that if you don't already think Regidrago should be banned, it's hard to be convinced of that.

The truth of the matter is, despite their limited number, Fairies are a naturally powerful type in the tier and find their way on teams regardless, and Steels, if slightly less consistent, do as well. It's why arguments against Drago can be so murky, and often transition back and forth between "well Regidrago is restrictive in teambuilder" to "oh well Regidrago causes 50/50s in preview" to "well Regidrago is so strong it does both" to "well Regidrago isn't that strong because of it's obvious checks but..."

AND THAT'S WHY THE OTR HAPPENED. To get proper argumentation out there, and truly talk about this pokemon in very specific ways. And to everyone's credit. I think both the community and council engaged with the OTR in good faith and properly. Some arguments and some posts were just bad, but I think everyone acknowledged that this is a hard discussion to have and did their best to talk about it, despite many people already talking about it before.

 

[LongRat]

Let's look at surveys shall we? Post PL we had this one. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-1.3743520/#post-10131506. Clearly showed that a majority of players and a majority of qualified players did not believe Drago needed immediate action.

If we're looking at the same post, you've completely misread the data i'm afraid.

That's 54.1% for "I believe it should see action immediately". Qualified responses only is even higher.

Then there was this one: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-2.3749839/#post-10247361 which, while more people thought Drago was more actionable, was still not significantly over a 3/5, and showed that qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large.

The Data in question

Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.

I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.

 

[lost heros]

If we're looking at the same post, you've completely misread the data i'm afraid.

View attachment 697231
That's 54.1% for "I believe it should see action immediately". Qualified responses only is even higher.

View attachment 697232The Data in question

Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.

I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.

I did swap the colors my bad.

 

[DEG]

The community by and large has NOT shown overwhelming support for a Regidrago suspect, and this has been a consistent lie told by very vocal people who want Regidrago gone.


Let's look at surveys shall we? Post PL we had this one. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-1.3743520/#post-10131506. Clearly showed that a majority of players and a majority of qualified players did not believe Drago needed immediate action. Then there was this one: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-dlc2-tiering-survey-2.3749839/#post-10247361 which, while more people thought Drago was more actionable, was still not significantly over a 3/5, and showed that qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large.

I don’t believe referencing two surveys conducted during the era of Gouging Fire and Ogerpon-Hearthflame as solid evidence against the idea of overwhelming support is entirely valid, as they reflect a different metagame. Back then, Regidrago didn’t warrant priority over those mentioned Pokémon, as both overshadowed it. The metagame has shifted, and we can’t directly compare past priorities with the present ones. While pro-Drago suspect support was not overwhelmingly strong at the time, it still existed. However, it’s clear that the support has become overwhelming post-Gouging Fire ban, as indicated by the posts targeting Drago in that thread after the ban.

However! Despite the first survey still, council still decided to suspect Regidrago. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/dragon-soul-regidrago-suspect.3744257/, which despite its flaws did result in a DNB with only 54% of voters voting ban (accounting for mishlef's abstain into his wanted vote of DNB).

This demonstrates that the council was more lenient in allowing the community to propose suspects in the past. However, it doesn't reflect the concerns or dynamics of today’s metagame

And yet! The pro-Drago ban crowd continues to say "it's what the community wants", DESPITE many community members coming out and speaking against it repeatedly, or are we ignoring posts like this one and this one? It's gotten so bad that people who argue that Drago is fine, with very good points sometimes, still feel the need to qualify their posts and say "well it's what the community wants so I guess we have too..." (see bo's post above or Lumii's post here).

Don't get me wrong. I think a. Regidrago deserved a re-test, b. should probably be banned, and c. a majority of people probably agree with me. However, I do not think the council is actively twirling their mustaches and saying "screw the will of the people hahahhahahahah". Quite frankly, Regidrago is a hard pokemon to talk about. It's so incredibly linear, and its counters so naturally fit on teams regardless of Regidrago's presence that if you don't already think Regidrago should be banned, it's hard to be convinced of that.

The truth of the matter is, despite their limited number, Fairies are a naturally powerful type in the tier and find their way on teams regardless, and Steels, if slightly less consistent, do as well. It's why arguments against Drago can be so murky, and often transition back and forth between "well Regidrago is restrictive in teambuilder" to "oh well Regidrago causes 50/50s in preview" to "well Regidrago is so strong it does both" to "well Regidrago isn't that strong because of it's obvious checks but..."

AND THAT'S WHY THE OTR HAPPENED. To get proper argumentation out there, and truly talk about this pokemon in very specific ways. And to everyone's credit. I think both the community and council engaged with the OTR in good faith and properly. Some arguments and some posts were just bad, but I think everyone acknowledged that this is a hard discussion to have and did their best to talk about it, despite many people already talking about it before.

I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.

 

[LongRat]

Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.

In fact, that survey post itself states "With this, 2 Pokémon stand out: Gouging Fire and Regidrago are perceived by the average player and highlighted players to be in need of moderate to severe tiering action.". This clearly shows what the attitudes of players were.

 

[Mishlef]

If we're looking at the same post, you've completely misread the data i'm afraid.

View attachment 697231
That's 54.1% for "I believe it should see action immediately". Qualified responses only is even higher.

View attachment 697232The Data in question

Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did. I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.

I agree that lost heroes misread the post (we all make mistakes) but is it not true that after this survey results posted by Drip there was a suspect following this. Whatever people’s complaints were about the suspect test and its flaws the suspect test did happen and could someone not make the same argument used against many people who were disappointed about past suspect results and say “if you cared enough about it you should have gotten reqs”. I feel like pretending that there’s an overwhelming support for Regidrago suspect and the council is ignoring the community also ignores the posts made by many people who were against Regidrago ban. Lastly I want to air on the side of caution about using the numbers as proof of anything, let me give one such example. Let’s say 54% of the community was in favor of a regidrago ban, and let’s say 54% vote 5 on regidrago and the 46% not in favor of a ban vote 1. The resulting average and median are 3.16 and 5 respectively. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it shows that we should be a bit more cautious about talking using those numbers as justification of much because in my opinion the 1-5 system results in the amplification of pro ban voices, especially without taking into account that what as 2 or a 3 for one person may drastically be different than what those are for a different person.

 

[lost heros]

That's 54.1% for "I believe it should see action immediately". Qualified responses only is even higher.

View attachment 697232The Data in question

Firsly, you claim that "qualified players thought Drago was less deserving than the playerbase at large". The actual difference is 0.04, which makes your assertion almost comically overexaggerated. I would further point out that the average score for Regidrago is only slightly lower than Gouging Fire, in an era where Haban Gouging was itself an answer to Regidrago. Even further, both mons had a median of 4, which potentially shows that instead of the playerbase converging on a lower average, the Drago DnB voters felt more strongly about DnB than the Gouging voters did.

I don't think the data backs up your point about the general playerbase not supporting a Drago suspect at all.

3.31 < 3.35. Small, but not wrong. And when we're talking about scales from 1-5. 0.04 is not tiny, and would imply that there are slightly more 4 and 5 votes being removed than there are 1 and 2 votes, which is significant when there are already more 4 and 5 votes than there are 1 and 2.

I do think the playerbase supports a suspect. I do not think that the playerbase is overwhelming 100 to 1 for a suspect.

I don’t believe referencing two surveys conducted during the era of Gouging Fire and Ogerpon-Hearthflame as solid evidence against the idea of overwhelming support is entirely valid, as they reflect a different metagame. Back then, Regidrago didn’t warrant priority over those mentioned Pokémon, as both overshadowed it. The metagame has shifted, and we can’t directly compare past priorities with the present ones. While pro-Drago suspect support was not overwhelmingly strong at the time, it still existed. However, it’s clear that the support has become overwhelming post-Gouging Fire ban, as indicated by the posts targeting Drago in that thread after the ban.



This demonstrates that the council was more lenient in allowing the community to propose suspects in the past. However, it doesn't reflect the concerns or dynamics of today’s metagame



I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.

I misread the colors, so the action taken does make more sense, but nonetheless still ended in a narrow DNB margin.

I don't see how council members holding opinions is a conflict of interest, unless you are to say my opinions are also a conflict of interest, despite thinking Drago should've been suspected? These people are informed and skilled players who have been trusted to not just act with the community in mind, but to also serve the metagame to their own knowledge base.

 

[Mishlef]

I have not ignored the DNS posts; quite the opposite, I included them in the 12-4 count. Interestingly, I even considered Bo's post in the "4," despite him ending it with "Suspect." While the DNS/DNB crowd is present, it’s clear that they do not form the majority—there are always two sides to the discussion, and in this case, the S crowd holds the majority. Furthermore, there seems to be a conflict of interest when three votes are required to render something "unsuspectable," and two of those votes are from individuals who have already expressed a DNB stance on Regidrago in the OTR, dismissing the numerous outcries. It’s valid to hold Ban/DNB and S/DNS opinions, but ultimately, the outcry should be respected, even if it isn’t aligned with one's personal views.

I have issues with this framing, one it seems that council members are being held up to two different contradictory standards the first being one of transparency in which case one would believe they should post and voice their opinions. The second is that of acting solely as barometers for the community and treating it like a poll, which in turn you believe means they shouldn’t express their stance on the OTR. I think this is the wrong approach as I value transparency first and foremost. Additionally, I think it’s laughably contradictory that you don’t hold this level of critique to the two council members who made posts in favor of a Regidrago suspect.

 

[DEG]

I don't see how council members holding opinions is a conflict of interest, unless you are to say my opinions are also a conflict of interest, despite thinking Drago should've been suspected?

I think it’s laughably contradictory that you don’t hold this level of critique to the two council members who made posts in favor of a Regidrago suspect.

If the community was leaning to DNS and 4/6 council member forced the Pokemon to go to a suspect test then they'd be hold accountable to the same level. It's just a theory since 1) It's harder to get something suspected against the will of people, 2) It's even harder to get something banned if that happens.

+ I never said they can't be transparent and state their opinion. They're free to state their opinion and change the mind of people in a potential S/DNS discussion or in a potential B/DNB discussion but three people shouldn't go against the majority of the community and force their opinion on them.

 

[LongRat]

I agree that lost heroes misread the post (we all make mistakes) but is it not true that after this survey results posted by Drip there was a suspect following this.

I am confused about this first line and need elaboration. I did not talk about Gouging regarding Drip's post nor claim that this is the case.
Not me hallucinating the word "Gouging"

Whatever people’s complaints were about the suspect test and its flaws the suspect test did happen and could someone not make the same argument used against many people who were disappointed about past suspect results and say “if you cared enough about it you should have gotten reqs”. I feel like pretending that there’s an overwhelming support for Regidrago suspect and the council is ignoring the community also ignores the posts made by many people who were against Regidrago ban.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the DnB voters nor claiming "overwhelming" support for banning Drago - only a majority. This is simply backed up by the polls that Lost Heros linked, where Regidrago is consistently ranked as needing action. In the first poll, a whopping 89.2% supported action on Drago at some point. In the second poll, Regidrago puts up similar numbers to the banned and not-missed Gouging.

Lastly I want to air on the side of caution about using the numbers as proof of anything, let me give one such example. Let’s say 54% of the community was in favor of a regidrago ban, and let’s say 54% vote 5 on regidrago and the 46% not in favor of a ban vote 1. The resulting average and median are 3.16 and 5 respectively. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it shows that we should be a bit more cautious about talking using those numbers as justification of much because in my opinion the 1-5 system results in the amplification of pro ban voices, especially without taking into account that what as 2 or a 3 for one person may drastically be different than what those are for a different person.

I think if we go down the road of "numbers can't be trusted" then concretely arguing for anything at all becomes impossible. While indeed the difference between each number is subjective, I can't help but feel like trying to disregard numbers from poll results simply comes from wanting to disregard the results themselves. I made a point earlier about the difference in mean vs the non-difference in median, and I can fully see how that can be quibbled with. But I just don't like the idea of not trusting any numbers.

 

[Mishlef]

If the community was leaning to DNS and 4/6 council member forced the Pokemon to go to a suspect test then they'd be hold accountable to the same level. It's just a theory since 1) It's harder to get something suspected against the will of people, 2) It's even harder to get something banned if that happens.

+ I never said they can't be transparent and state their opinion. They're free to state their opinion and change the mind of people in a potential S/DNS discussion or in a potential B/DNB discussion but three people shouldn't go against the majority of the community and force their opinion on them.

The onus of a regidrago suspect to happen is for the ban regidrago side to make convincing arguments, this is definitionally the case. Do you believe that a simple majority(50% +1) (let’s say a poll) would be sufficient justification for a suspect test to occur? If you acknowledge that they are free to change the minds of a potential S/DNS discussion then why do you want them to not take into consideration the posts people make and use them to determine whether they think a suspect test is warranted or not? OTR function(tmk) is not to act as a poll otherwise one liners and the like wouldn’t be deleted because if it was a straightforward poll then these one liners in support of something would be equally valid to the longer posts which formulate their stance with arguments

 

[LongRat]

3.31 < 3.35. Small, but not wrong. And when we're talking about scales from 1-5. 0.04 is not tiny, and would imply that there are slightly more 4 and 5 votes being removed than there are 1 and 2 votes, which is significant when there are already more 4 and 5 votes than there are 1 and 2.

0.04 is 100% tiny. In a poll with 69 non-qualified and 26 qualified voters, this difference could come from a single 3 being changed to a 2. Maybe two 3s.

I do think the playerbase supports a suspect. I do not think that the playerbase is overwhelming 100 to 1 for a suspect.

Two people seem to have gotten the impression that I said there was huge, widesweeping support for a Drago suspect. I did not mean to imply this, so sorry if I did. I refer to myself to respond to this:

Me to Mishelf:
I don't think anyone is ignoring the DnB voters nor claiming "overwhelming" support for banning Drago - only a majority. This is simply backed up by the polls that Lost Heros linked, where Regidrago is consistently ranked as needing action. In the first poll, a whopping 89.2% supported action on Drago at some point. In the second poll, Regidrago puts up similar numbers to the banned and not-missed Gouging.

 

[BigChuchu]

What is done is done, but...

Can we just have an odd number of voting council members to avoid this controversial situation of pure 50/50 in the future?

• "What if someone abstains?", you ask – well, what if they don't?)
• " Yeah b-b-but 4/7 is still not 60%! Ha!" – technically right. Is a 60% needed ALSO for 7-member council votes? It's a supermajority, maybe we can apply common sense?

PS: let's re-direct all our rage towards Pecharunt next.

 

[Mishlef]

Can we just have an odd number of voting council members to avoid this controversial situation of pure 50/50 in the future?

I don’t think this outcome can be labeled controversial because when there is a straight 50/50 the correct course of action is the status quo. Therefore as the status quo is for Regidrago to not have a suspect so this is working exactly as it should be. You can argue it’s controversial to have a tiering council but that’s a separate conversation and a separate argument than the one you’re making.

 

[DEG]

The onus of a regidrago suspect to happen is for the ban regidrago side to make convincing arguments, this is definitionally the case. Do you believe that a simple majority(50% +1) (let’s say a poll) would be sufficient justification for a suspect test to occur? If you acknowledge that they are free to change the minds of a potential S/DNS discussion then why do you want them to not take into consideration the posts people make and use them to determine whether they think a suspect test is warranted or not? OTR function(tmk) is not to act as a poll otherwise one liners and the like wouldn’t be deleted because if it was a straightforward poll then these one liners in support of something would be equally valid to the longer posts which formulate their stance with arguments

I don't get the convincing arguments part, if the arguments weren't good then the majority of the community wouldn't be siding with the suspect side. I don't think the community will rally behind a non suspect worthy Pokemon by providing bad arguments.

I believe the whole OTR>Council Voting system is flawed. As we've just witnessed both of these can be contradictory. There's no reason to have an OTR if the council is still going to vote against the community, might as well just have read that thread and vote. OTR is redundant and useless if it's not going to serve its true purpose which is to rally all voices in one thread. If that's not OTR objective then the whole system should change.

 

[BigChuchu]

I don’t think this outcome can be labeled controversial because when there is a straight 50/50 the correct course of action is the status quo. Therefore as the status quo is for Regidrago to not have a suspect so this is working exactly as it should be. You can argue it’s controversial to have a tiering council but that’s a separate conversation and a separate argument than the one you’re making.

Legality and controversy are not mutually exclusive. A law or policy can be legally valid, yet still spark intense public debate, disagreement, and criticism.

My suggestion still stands.

 

[Mishlef]

I don't get the convincing arguments part, if the arguments weren't good then the majority of the community wouldn't be siding with the suspect side. I don't think the community will rally behind a non suspect worthy Pokemon by providing bad arguments.

If the arguments were made using faulty evidence then yes the arguments can be unconvincing even if a lot of people believe it. Just because someone said corv loses to specs drago does not mean it is true and if that’s one of the reasons a person uses as justification for a position then of course it’s possible a community can rally behind a non suspect worthy mon by providing bad arguments.

Legality and controversy are not mutually exclusive. A law or policy can be legally valid, yet still spark intense public debate, disagreement, and criticism.

My suggestion still stands.

Yes, but this one isn’t, unless you believe the onus and responsibility of whether Regidrago gets suspected or not should be on people wanting to not ban Regidrago instead of the people who want to ban Regidrago. If you believe that onus of proof is on the Ban Regidrago crowd you must also believe that if there is a 50/50 you have to go with the do not ban crowd. Do you believe this to be true?

 

[luser]

Short non-conclusive pro ban post by DreamPrince (who is not really a qualified member of the playerbase

DreamPrince is actually a two-time sv 1v1 reqs qualifier and suspect voter.

I do not like it when my council members arbitrarily decide that someone's comment is less worthy of consideration, and I think that this is a clear signal of how the council views the community.