freeze mod and sleep clause mod arent complex bans and are instead the changing of game mechanics deemed fundamentally uncompetitive after very long periods of discussion. These are not complex bans and you will rarely find them outside of gen 5 ou, a famously unbalanced metagame.There is nothing complex about banning specific moves outright. Regardless, complex bans are common place in draft, and even in Smogon even if they argue that they don’t like complex bans. Freeze Clause Mod in gen 1 and Sleep Clause Mods across gens are complex bans already.
I do heavily oppose banning cut moves in natdex formats for accessibility and interface purposes, but a ban on specific moves such as Hypnosis are very simple bans that outline uncompetitive and unhealthy moves. Powder moves have safety goggles as well which you didn’t mention and are heavily accessible. I just don’t see your point or why you would ever want this, can you elaborate on why you view this as complex in any way?
Sleep moves also can easily midground swap ins, they are only “inconsistent for the user” if you run them for luck.
Banning select sleep moves is more complex and also goes against the precendents set in smogons history for how to take action on mechanics like status conditions, weather, etc. This may be draft league, but i believe that draft league under smogon should adhere more closely to smogon policy whenever possible. When we have precedent for modding the game to remove/alter mechanics deemed unhealthy and largely have none for limiting them via more specific bans, again outside of gen 5 ou which shouldnt really be used as a guideline for any tier. That is why i view it as an effective complex ban. Precedent and policy indicates the best way is just to go all or nothing, even if only specific sleep moves are having the MOST unhealthy impact on the game, I believe that still means it is the mechanic as a whole that is the issue and therefore that implementing the sleep moves mod is the best option if action is to be taken beyond sleep clause.
Just because some ways to trigger sleep have more counterplay doesnt make a fair argument for managing something as impactful as sleep, because by that logic lum berry, taunt, sub, mons like Gholdengo and Garganacl are real arguments for keeping hypnosis and sing. You can see how this leads to a lot of arguing about counterplay for the mechanic and delving away from if the mechanic is uncompetative or not, which is what the conversation should be focused on. With a recent example, moody didn't stay legal in Ubers because something like Bidoof was "more competative with more counterplay", it got banned because the variance was too much across the board and deemed uncompetative. That is how things like abilities, weather conditions, etc should be handled, and when we have the precedent for a sleep moves mod needlessly complicating it when the mechanic of sleep itself is fundamentally the issue, is counterintuitive.
I also just want to add this from the lengthy OU tiering policy post that most of the tiering policy on the site is based on (save for like, ubers and thats just for defining the level of uncompetativeness required for a mon/ability etc to be considered bannable). If sleep is going to be banned in any capacity other then full I think an argument needs to be made for why the remaining sleep moves *arent* uncompetitive, and when paytons post clearly highlights the issues with sleep as a status more then hypnosis or sing as a move I think a full sleep ban is the very clear option if action is to be taken, and thats something i support. Sleep as a status is uncompetitive due to the high level of variance it forces into play that can often disrupt the target outcome of "the more skilled player can consistently win". While some sleep moves have more counterplay then others there is not a good justification for trying to keep it in the format based on the "merits" of being able to "play around the luck" per se.D.) Complex bans proposals must provide additional information into why the simpler bans are not sufficient.
Last edited:



















