the eye of the needle
I would gladly accept this technical inconsistency if it leads to better metagames. This is what I meant by "practical concern": Quagsire being PU while getting OU usage for a bit would not really have major negative consequences for either tier, whereas Quagsire getting taken from the former tier as a result of i.e. a particular stall team getting trendy in OU for a month or two could very well have negative consequences for PU. There is no practical concern for an OU player if Quagsire "unjustly" remains PU while getting OU usage in my estimation.Well, yes, that's exactly why I mentioned them. In this hypothetical higher rise/lower drop scenario, it's completely possible that things in UU or RU, or Gastrodon or Quagsire, have higher usage (between 4.52% and 6.70%) at the time of any given shift than Pokemon that are literally in OU. But they wouldn't become OU themselves.
Well, a Pokemon's tier is indicated in the Pokemon Showdown teambuilder and also in the Smogdex. For new players, this should be sufficient. If they find out more about usage based tiering and notice that a certain mon is i.e. above the OU threshold yet is UU according to PS and they have questions about this, they can be redirected to a page where our tiering process and the reasoning behind it is explained.There are 8 Pokemon between 4.52% and 6.70% here, but unless it's the very first shift of the generation (when none of them would be OU) how can anyone tell any of these Pokemon are actually still in OU unless they already know? At the end of a usage cycle, all of these Pokemon stay where they were before because the rise threshold is higher than the drop threshold. Volcanion has more usage than Regieleki but the former stays RU and the latter stays OU? How do you explain this to a new player, given that Smogon claims to tier by usage?
Your point is valid and worth bringing up, however I do not believe that the question of optics should ever outweigh the question of improving the competitiveness of our core metagames unless there are seriously good reasons to assume that our optics could suffer in such a way that it scares away a significant amount of people from our community. I plainly do not believe this to be the case.I imagine this would be pretty awkward for Kalalokki to illustrate in usage graphics as well. If nobody else cares about the optics then that's fine, I just want everyone to understand what this proposal means in practice.
While this is what sparked the conversation, this is about more than only such cases. There are also cases of Pokemon temporarily rising to a higher tier to deal with a particular threat that's been on the rise - i.e. Kyurem beign checked by Scizor - only for said Pokemon to drop once the threat it's meant to check falls off or gets banned. This can cause unnecessary destabilization of the tier below as it has to deal with the lack of said Pokemon for several months and then with its reintroduction some months later. A veto system alone is also not sufficient to deal with this problem - Scizor for example was a viable albeit a niche pick in OU even without Kyurem around, so it'd be contentious to prevent its rise on the basis of not being viable enough. This is where a higher rise cutoff gives better protection to the tier below while avoiding the kind of dispute that opponents of the veto system would fear.If I understood correctly, the OP is looking for a solution to prevent a user or a group of users to manipulate usage stats by getting a shitmon a huge amount of usage by spamming the ladder.
My proposition would be that the council of the tier losing the Pokemon makes a veto request, as it is the tier most immediately effected and therefore the one that has the most immediate demand in preventing a rise if it deems said rise undesirable and illegitimate - it is not difficult to check the other tier's VR and/or the usage stats to see if a case can realistically be made. The council of the tier the mon in question is rising to then affirms said request if it determines that the argument being made is valid - the criteria for what counts as a valid argument should not be overly strict here, since the other council typically would not have filed a veto request if no serious case could be made. We can trust this to be the case, since councils need to act as a team and unreasonable requests can be shot down before they are made. Moreover, councils should consist of people who have knowledge about their tier and about tiering in general, so they presumably would not act rashly. Of course, as I already mentioned, the potential for any inter-council disputes is reduced even further if we implement a higher rise cutoff. In the unfortunate case that such a dispute does occur, this can surely be resolved through conversation (possibly assisted by one or more previously designated mediators). If it turns out that we were wrong about the veto system entirely and inter-council disputes become a persistent issue, the veto system can be done away with, although it is highly unlikely that it would come to this.In my opinion, a veto system seems like a better approach as it has, as far as i know, no repercution on "legitimate" rises. However, who is getting the right to veto rises? Taking the instance of NU Hitmontop, is it NU council, NUTLs, PU council, PUTLs, a mix of them, or something else? The PU players have no legitimity deciding about a Pokemon's place in NU, while I don't think NU players want to take the responsability to take a decision that doesn't affect the tier they are playing, even if they have a concrete idea of the Pokemon viability.
As I already indicated in a previous post, "objectivity" is a word we should avoid. Tiering practices are always necessarily intersubjective, laissez-faire usage based tiering only provides a veneer of objectivity that dissipates once we consider how those little numbers that determine rises and drops actually come about. As it stands, our tiers are subject to fluctuations based on even more arbitrary things than a VR decided by a tiering council, which at least requires valid reasoning from said council and can be held to public scrutiny. Pokemon rise because a Youtuber decided to hype them up; they rise because a certain sample team takes off; they rise because one person with too much free time spams them; they remain in a tier they're considered unviable or niche in because they happen to be near the top of the builder; they rise to or remain in a tier they're considered unviable in because ladder players still can't get over their thing for shitty Rapid Spin users for whatever reason. Let's therefore not confuse ourselves by looking for "objectivity" in a game where there isn't very much of that at all.It is quite hard to fix objectif criterias as the viability of certain Pokemon within a tier is subjective. I've seen people talk about Viability Rankings, however I think it is a fake objective criteria, as the VR is decided by a few selected users, who could manipulate the rankings to affect tier shifts. I can't think of any objective criteria that could be used to determine whether a rise is legitimate or not.