Removing "Obviously" BL Pokemon Before the End of a UU Test Period

[Erazor]

Um, franky, the period is 4 weeks as of the current test. And will be for all future tests.

The problems with quick boot threads is that they essentially turn into a short-cut "nomination" process. Its just a nomination thread without the testing and long paragraphs and I would think that people would just bold vote random threats that they feel is broken.

The thread will be specific to the controversial pokemon, not any random shit. Like a new addition to UU(hi Heracross).

And it's not nominations. A bold vote is one in which you post your vote while backing it up suitably with good arguments. It is not to be confused with a nominations thread.

People will be playtesting as well. The thread should open after, say, a week of testing, and then remain for about 5 days. That gives us some time to determine "clearly broken".

 

[Heysup]

The thread will be specific to the controversial pokemon, not any random shit. Like a new addition to UU(hi Heracross).

And it's not nominations. A bold vote is one in which you post your vote while backing it up suitably with good arguments. It is not to be confused with a nominations thread.

The nomination thread is a bold vote. That's why the terms are basically interchangeable in this context.

The "good" arguments you're suggesting for a bold vote should/would be equal to the arguments required for any bold vote would it not?

If not, then why not simply write paragraphs? That would be the next step up.

People will be playtesting as well. The thread should open after, say, a week of testing, and then remain for about 5 days. That gives us some time to determine "clearly broken".

I agree with this as long as the "thread" is for paragraphs and not a "bold vote" a la nomination thread.

Also you did not respond to my point about banning something by "precedent", does that mean you agree?

 

[Erazor]

lol Heysup, I must really suck at communication, because you and me are arguing about the same thing :)

By bold vote, I meant really detailed bold vote, paragraph-like. Not a nomination paragraph as such, which is short and not very detailed.

About precedent - yes, Gallade and Heracross are not completely similar pokemon. However, they are similar enough. As far as destroying stall goes(which is the reason we banned Gallade), I can argue that Heracross is even more effective than Gallade, since he gets a guts boost from Toxic Spikes. Heracross also has pretty decent special defense. Yes, he doesn't have Shadow Sneak... so? It's only useful against offensive teams anyway.

 

[Heysup]

lol Heysup, I must really suck at communication, because you and me are arguing about the same thing :)

By bold vote, I meant really detailed bold vote, paragraph-like. Not a nomination paragraph as such, which is short and not very detailed.

Ok then we agree on this. :)

About precedent - yes, Gallade and Heracross are not completely similar pokemon. However, they are similar enough. As far as destroying stall goes(which is the reason we banned Gallade), I can argue that Heracross is even more effective than Gallade, since he gets a guts boost from Toxic Spikes. Heracross also has pretty decent special defense. Yes, he doesn't have Shadow Sneak... so? It's only useful against offensive teams anyway.

But if something is a liability against other teams it clearly shouldn't be broken.

For example, Absol destroys stall almost as much as Gallade does, however against fast offensive teams with priority, it's basically a liability. Pokemon such as Blaziken work like this as well.

Gallade on the other hand was not. It is too specially bulky and it has the "perfect" priority move to counter its would-be Ghost-type checks.

With Heracross we simply cannot know if it's going to be like Gallade or like Blaziken/Absol. Guessing isn't good enough in my opinion, so unless they are essentially identical Pokemon this is not a valid banning process in my opinion.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

But if something is a liability against other teams it clearly shouldn't be broken.

I think this is wrong, but I'll bear with you for now anyway.

For example, Absol destroys stall almost as much as Gallade does, however against fast offensive teams with priority, it's basically a liability.

Hitmontop?

Gallade on the other hand was not. It is too specially bulky

And Heracross isn't?

With Heracross we simply cannot know if it's going to be like Gallade or like Blaziken/Absol.

Like Gallade. Heracross is capable of taking on and checking several offfensive threats such as SD Venusaur, Torterra, Absol etc with its stat distribution and typing, similar to how Gallade can check frail Ghosts, Alakazam, some Raikou etc. Blaziken and Absol are frail glass cannons that don't have the stats or typing to check anything remotely offensive / common beyond their own priority. See the difference?

I just thought I should mention these points, as your central argument is possibly valid, but the examples you're using to justify it are a bit flawed.

This is Policy Review though, so it is somewhat off-topic. I personally agree with Erazor's points for the most part, and have little of significant substance to add right now.

 

[reachzero]

My opinion on this subject is that we should always err on the side of more testing, and that "precedent" is a very poor indicator when it comes to Pokemon unless precedent is overwhelming; there is enough difference between Heracross and Gallade (no priority, greatly reduced movepool, different typing) that I don't believe there is enough precedence to say much about Heracross from that standpoint. For a Pokemon to merit special consideration from day one, it would have to be a truly exceptional case, and the only Pokemon I can see gaining such consideration that has not already dropped to UU that could conceivably do so is Hippowdon. Aside from auto-Weather, it is difficult to single out any Pokemon that merits such special treatment.

 

[Tleilax]

I'm not a big fan of "precedent" in terms of considering banning. Each Pokemon should be considered on it's own merits, rather than assumptions. The whole point of redoing UU was because we wanted to see how the metagame would work if everything was given a shake, and everything was tested fairly rather than booted without a turn. To try and do so again seems to go against what the whole tier was revamped for, regardless of how sure we think we are as to how it will turn out, unless there is VERY good reason.

I reiterate, if after a Pokemon is introduced there is overwhelming negative feedback, only then do we consider an early vote. I believe two weeks is sufficient time to get a feel for the addition in question, and help avoid knee-jerk reactions. I don't believe that in all cases the whole testing period is necessary, and that it is detrimental to keep something in that has an overpowering effect on the metagame, as it might conceal other new additions that might be equally as potent with it gone, forcing us to wait even longer for a relatively stable environment. This is especially important due to the UU metagame being completely reliant on that of the OU. UU does not control what comes down into it's bracket. Sometimes something clearly overpowered for UU but not in flavor at OU will trickle down, and players should not have to deal with it for the whole testing period. Having at least the option to boot, even strictly controlled (as it should be), is a necessity.

 

[Heysup]

I just thought I should mention these points, as your central argument is possibly valid, but the examples you're using to justify it are a bit flawed.

This is Policy Review though, so it is somewhat off-topic. I personally agree with Erazor's points for the most part, and have little of significant substance to add right now.

Yea, I see what you mean. I summed up my thoughts much better in a PM with Erazor (we basically took it to PM since it was only us in the thread....):

I thought "by precedent" you were suggesting that we can simply theoryban something (like Heracross) because of it being so similar to Gallade.

And if you are suggesting that we follow the week testing anyway, precedent would not apply to pretty much anything. It doesn't matter if they "share" characteristics, but the point is that the reason for Gallade's banning was because the Swords Dance set was definitely not a liability versus offense in addition to it demolishing stall. Heracross's Swords Dance set functions completely differently, and stall can check it quite effectively with Rotom. While Heracross is overall "better", I don't think it would make any sense to ban it "because Gallade is broken", due to Heracross not possessing many of the "good qualities" of Gallade.

You can argue that Heracross's STAB Megahorn, Speed, Ability, and Resistances make up for Gallade's Shadow Sneak, absurd SpD, and "lack of exploitable weaknesses", however then you're not banning by precedent because simply addressing those points goes against the whole reasoning of using precedents.

All in all I don't think we should have a separate process for "similar" Pokemon, but they can be used as references to make an easier case. Like, clearly when/if (lets be honest, when) I nominate Heracross, I will absolutely bring up Gallade as supporting material and argue that Heracross's advantages outweigh Gallade's. However arguing that "they are the same Pokemon so ban them both" is completely flawed when considering the actual differences that the two have.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

Ironic still that stall Rotom actually fares worse against Heracross than Gallade, with neither an effective attack nor an effective status route. Both can potentially OHKO after a turn of setup anyway, except that Gallade needs to use Night Slash.

But that is besides the point anyway. Nobody, including me, would object to at least some testing for any Pokemon, no matter how absurd. But there are certain cases where there is substantial evidence pointing to a highly likely outcome, and in order to keep the testing process efficient we need to have a system in place that can keep these issues in check and allow such Pokemon to be quickly removed at any point with immediate effect. In the case of Heracross, predecent with respect to Gallade is what is providing the substantial evidence, and therefore we need to heavily monitor any testing that takes place from the start. Nobody wants another Cress situation after all, although that actually had nothing to do with precedent, it was just one of those 'absurd' cases that only became apparent after a few days to a week of testing. Still, the whole point of this thread is to allow us to be better prepared for all such cases in the future. Testing everything for 4-6 weeks no matter what the circumstances is NOT the way to go IMHO.

 

[Heysup]

But that is besides the point anyway. Nobody, including me, would object to at least some testing for any Pokemon, no matter how absurd. But there are certain cases where there is substantial evidence pointing to a highly likely outcome, and in order to keep the testing process efficient we need to have a system in place that can keep these issues in check and allow such Pokemon to be quickly removed at any point with immediate effect. In the case of Heracross, predecent with respect to Gallade is what is providing the substantial evidence, and therefore we need to heavily monitor any testing that takes place from the start. Nobody wants another Cress situation after all, although that actually had nothing to do with precedent, it was just one of those 'absurd' cases that only became apparent after a few days to a week of testing. Still, the whole point of this thread is to allow us to be better prepared for all such cases in the future. Testing everything for 4-6 weeks no matter what the circumstances is NOT the way to go IMHO.

Although I don't really understand your logic for the first part of your post, it is really a matter to be discussed in the UU thread.

Anyway, we are basically saying the same thing. I am saying "If the Pokemon are the same (i.e. competitively identical) then we cannot simply theoryban based on a hunch". We CAN however, use Gallade for a basis of information with respect to Heracross. This means we would absolutely put Heracross under the microscope as soon as we can test it, possibly resulting in an early ban (something similar to the process Erazor suggested).

As I said in my previous post, when or if we do a bold vote I will definitely bring up Gallade in my reasoning.