For most of ADV LC's existence, Porygon and Wailmer were not banned. In fact, Porygon had never even been brought up for a suspect before Coconut's thread was posted, while Wailmer had been brought up for a suspect but voted against. When Porygon was added to the banlist, it was on the votes of a council of three users, with no input at all from other ADV LC players. While this was ignored due to ADV LC's inactive playerbase at the time, I feel that such a process isn't acceptable if we are looking into giving ADV LC more legitimacy going forward.
I think that this tournament is a prime opportunity to fairly evaluate these two Pokemon with a large playerbase, a chance that we may not be able to get for some time. The alternative would be to assume Porygon and Wailmer are broken for the duration of the tournament and then vote on them afterwards, but the playerbase then will likely have a biased representation of these two Pokemon, as they will only be able to playtest them against a very small group of people. Perhaps we can unban Porygon and Wailmer for the first three rounds, and have the remaining players vote on whether they are banworthy for the remaining rounds as a suspect test of sorts.
It's worth noting that while ADV LC never had a notably large playerbase, there were periods of time when it had a dozen or two users actively playing it - significantly more than it did when Porygon and Wailmer were quickbanned - and was developed over several years. As a result, we actually have more sample teams for the Porygon/Wailmer metagame than the metagame without them, and a variety of other resources from when Aerow was trying his best, so unbanning Porygon and Wailmer is preferable for helping ease users into the metagame in that regard.
e: this wasn't meant to be a callout - I was directed to make a post on the forums when I mentioned my concerns over discord
I was about to post round 1, but I'd love some discussion on Levi's points before doing so.
Personally, I agree that the banning of those pokemon were definitely not under ideal conditions and that this tournament would be a fantastic way to correctly evaluate if they are indeed broken or not. I don't think there's any fair way to ban a pokemon that only three people found broken, even if that is the entire playerbase. I'm in favor of at least part of this tour having the two usable, but the question then becomes exactly how much of the tournament. Is Levi's proposed 3 rounds enough? Too much of having to play with what might be unfair pokemon? Is making it through three rounds of a bo1 tour enough of a qualification to vote? Everybody's input appreciated.
at least from a general perspective, considering that porygon and wailmer have been in the tier for a long time (and seem to have been legal when this tier experienced some exploration around 2? years ago), it feels pretty sketch to have it banned because 3 people thought it should be so. it doesn't have that much traffic so i see how such a decision could have been made, but if we're actually making a tournament we can't have a three-member council decide shit, lol
edit: after reading tko's post, i realize that this post probably sounded call-outy. wasn't my intention though i see how it reads like that so my b (i don't think levi's post was like that in any way though). i still think that having discussions like these in public are better since i prefer discussing stuff like this out in the open rather than behind closed doors. again i don't even play this meta but when it was being discussed in the LC discord I felt the same way about it so I thought i'd post as such
If it's so sketch I don't get why you guys didn't plan to bring it up with the ADV LC council and the LC moderators privately in a PM. Doing a public callout of the decision is pretty tacky and just ruins the vibe of this tour. I'm sure this could be handled more professionally and cleanly, and there isn't any reason for people to be throwing shade at each other. We all are part of the same community, so lets try to get along.
My only question is, if you're allowing them for three rounds then how would the rest of the tour proceed after that? I've thought of doing something similar to this in ADV NU in passing, but however you would want to proceed with the tiering decision here you have major problems.
If you allow the remaining players (top 16, top 8, whatever) in the tournament to vote on the pokemon in question, you are insanely likely, due to the low playerbase, to have half or more of the top eight being people that don't actually play the tier in question. While this isn't a huge deal in ladder-based suspects, when it comes down to an 8 man suspect test it's extremely significant. Two tier-relevant players can get matched up round 1 while JoeRandom12345 can get byes up until top 8.
If you're using the first three rounds as a means of gathering evidence to just conduct another vote between the few people that play again, it just seems like it would result in a similarly biased decision, especially considering that the people who regularly play tiers like this won't change their opinion by seeing some games from the first three rounds of a tournament anyways. This also falls into the pitfall many old gen other tiers fall into when discussing retroactive bans which is the thought that a discussion will be enough to settle a dispute when, in reality, it will usually only result in nothing getting done. Most suspect discussions will be split and for a split decision to be decided on there needs to be a suspect or leadership, both of which these tiers will not have.
From what I'm gathering there's legitimately only 3 people who play this tier, so I think there are three courses of action here.
Turn this into a two stage suspect tournament where the first stage is a seeded, round robin, group stage. Two best players of each group move onto stage 2 final bracket and top eight of bracket votes on the suspect.
Keep current tournament (you should probably change to bo3 though) including wailmer and porygon with the hope you get more people invested in the tier, pray to god they develop a similar mindset, then hold a vote with the (hopefully) expanded playerbase sometime in the future when they have learned the metagame more.
Option 1 means a more complicated tour, probably decreased participation from everyone who has signed up so far, but is fair to the decision. Option 2 is dependent on people actually continuing to play outside of the tour, maintaining interest in tiering decisions in the tier, and being able to develop a competent mindset regarding the tier in what will probably be a handful of battles (think of this person getting on OU council after having played 100 battles.)
I suppose there is an option 3, which is what just about every other old gen other tier has done up to this point
Play ur tier with the banned Pokemon or without the banned Pokemon and deal with a controversial busted tier or obvious bias, respectively.
After some discussion, I've decided that this tour will be ran with Wailmer and Porygon legal. They will be looked at again after this tournament if people still feel they warrant a suspect. With that out of the way, let's get into it!