Transitivity of Bans

Raseri

DPP Ubers Enthusiast
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I could also agree with Jellicents ideas more if every tier used the exact same philosophy towards banning, but that is not the case. Using UU as an example again, Shadow Tag was banned even though it might not have been broken on every user (Wynaut and Gothita in particular, Gothorita potentially), so lower tiers do not get the chance to see if these Pokemon are viable, purely because a different tier has a different opinion and philosophy on Shadow Tag. The same can be applied to things such as the Baton Pass clause, which as it currently is. limits NU and removes some viable competitive strategies such as drypassing cores that aren't as common in higher tiers, the collateral damage is there and the only real benefit the change brings is the removal of smashpass (which isnt really broken or anything just annoying to face)
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
My inclination would be to transitively ban all the way down (preferably including LC too, and perhaps even a winking recommendation to Ubers and Doubles, which operate much more independently) if the ban is based on noncompetitive reasons, like Swagger, Evasion, Baton Pass, etc. Competitiveness is the hallmark of a good game and should be enforced everywhere and at least considered where it's not as strictly necessary.

If the aspect in question is under fire because of general power level of the move/item/ability, it should be context dependent, as these elements can sometimes be limited by the users and competition.

I recognize this dividing line isn't necessarily clear. For example, Shadow Tag faced both attacks in its Ubers test. And Scald is currently under attack from both arguments as well. In my view the noncompetitive (in this case luck) argument holds no water, while the power level one might, depending on the metagame. So in that case UU could ban and leave RU and NU alone to make their own decisions.
 
Last edited:

Rowan

The professor?
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
My inclination would be to transitively ban all the way down (preferably including LC too, and perhaps even a winking recommendation to Ubers and Doubles, which operate much more independently) if the ban is based on noncompetitive reasons, like Swagger, Evasion, Baton Pass, etc. Competitiveness is the hallmark of a good game and should be enforced everywhere and at least considered where it's not as strictly necessary.
LC or doubles aren't based on uu/ru/nu or whatever so there's literally no reason for us to follow them just for the sake of consistency. LCs council recently voted no to nerfing baton pass even with 6 on a team because it just isn't actually that viable.
It makes zero sense, it's like saying if ferroseed is ru, it shouldn't be allowed in lc for consistency, or banning kanga in Ou means it should be banned in doubles.

I think discussion should remain solely about the tiers that are actually linked.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
LC or doubles aren't based on uu/ru/nu or whatever so there's literally no reason for us to follow them just for the sake of consistency. LCs council recently voted no to nerfing baton pass even with 6 on a team because it just isn't actually that viable.
It makes zero sense, it's like saying if ferroseed is ru, it shouldn't be allowed in lc for consistency, or banning kanga in Ou means it should be banned in doubles.

I think discussion should remain solely about the tiers that are actually linked.
It's in fact not remotely like saying Ferroseed is in RU hence can't be in LC... That comparison is really, really inapt. Ferroseed can be in both RU and LC because LC operates with a ruleset in which eligibility isn't based on usage in the "usage tiers." However, this is not an issue of nullifying LC's ruleset because Ferroseed happens to be good enough to be used in tiers with fully-evolved mons. Not remotely the same thing.

Instead, it's just saying that elements judged to be noncompetitive are noncompetitive everywhere. This obviously applies to the "usage tiers" from OU to NU, leaving just Ubers, Dubs, and LC to consider.

I carved out Ubers and Doubles as tiers that would only receive recommendations because of their uniqueness. Doubles is an entirely different format and has proven to be very resilient to things considered uncompetitive in singles. It doesn't need sleep clause for example. Ubers on the other hand has a long tradition of being very lenient and even still allows Evasion, (although tbh there are plenty of Ubers players who would like to see both Evasion and Baton Pass gone).

LC lacks these attributes, and so just because LC isn't tied into the usage system and because Baton Pass teams don't happen to be reliable according to the LC council does not mean that LC should necessarily be exempt from a Baton Pass ban, imo. Unless LC is also going to test other noncompetitive aspects to remove clauses, like Sleep, Evasion, Moody, or OHKO, I don't see why LC gets to be so special when it comes to just Baton Pass and none of the other noncompetitive strategy-limiting clauses.
 
It's in fact not remotely like saying Ferroseed is in RU hence can't be in LC... That comparison is really, really inapt. Ferroseed can be in both RU and LC because LC operates with a ruleset in which eligibility isn't based on usage in the "usage tiers." However, this is not an issue of nullifying LC's ruleset because Ferroseed happens to be good enough to be used in tiers with fully-evolved mons. Not remotely the same thing.

Instead, it's just saying that elements judged to be noncompetitive are noncompetitive everywhere. This obviously applies to the "usage tiers" from OU to NU, leaving just Ubers, Dubs, and LC to consider.

I carved out Ubers and Doubles as tiers that would only receive recommendations because of their uniqueness. Doubles is an entirely different format and has proven to be very resilient to things considered uncompetitive in singles. It doesn't need sleep clause for example. Ubers on the other hand has a long tradition of being very lenient and even still allows Evasion, (although tbh there are plenty of Ubers players who would like to see both Evasion and Baton Pass gone).

LC lacks these attributes, and so just because LC isn't tied into the usage system and because Baton Pass teams don't happen to be reliable according to the LC council does not mean that LC should necessarily be exempt from a Baton Pass ban, imo. Unless LC is also going to test other noncompetitive aspects to remove clauses, like Sleep, Evasion, Moody, or OHKO, I don't see why LC gets to be so special when it comes to just Baton Pass and none of the other noncompetitive strategy-limiting clauses.
Evasion is not allowed in Ubers ._.

Pretty sure BP is a case by case thing in terms of tiers. You saw the BP thread, or at least I think you did, there's gonna be more extreme users of BP the higher up you go in tier bracket. Define lacking attribute I'm lost here? You're trying to establish a criteria for a tier you don't play and assuming that all things need to be equally applied in terms of such a subjective criteria of uncompetitiveness because the more extremes of uncompetitive element have already been resolved such as OHKO and Swagger. This is really why tiers should just handle things on their own accord. Not every single thing being brought up as uncompetitive, see Scald thread as one example, is going to be equally a problem in other tiers. It just so happens all those clauses such as the last ones you mentioned were applicable to LC as well.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Evasion is not allowed in Ubers ._.

Pretty sure BP is a case by case thing in terms of tiers. You saw the BP thread, or at least I think you did, there's gonna be more extreme users of BP the higher up you go in tier bracket. Define lacking attribute I'm lost here? You're trying to establish a criteria for a tier you don't play and assuming that all things need to be equally applied in terms of such a subjective criteria of uncompetitiveness because the more extremes of uncompetitive element have already been resolved such as OHKO and Swagger. This is really why tiers should just handle things on their own accord. Not every single thing being brought up as uncompetitive, see Scald thread as one example, is going to be equally a problem in other tiers. It just so happens all those clauses such as the last ones you mentioned were applicable to LC as well.
First, I do play LC (although I played a lot more in XY than in ORAS), but even if I didn't my point would still stand. The entire point of noncompetitiveness is that it is bad everywhere. There are no "degrees" of noncompetitiveness. If Baton Pass is considered inherently noncompetitive for what it does to team matchup (which it now has been) it should be considered to be noncompetitive everywhere.

And second, Ubers did have evasion legal until quite recently, not that remotely matters to the point either. Know your history before you try to make a point about it haha. Ubers had evasion legal in BW and for all of XY/ORAS until 2 months ago, when shocker of shockers, they determined something that was noncompetitive should be banned, even though it wasn't by any means broken (a lot like Baton Pass in LC).

Banning noncompetitive elements should not be seen as anything other consistently applying the same site-wide philosophy that these things (OHKO, Moody, Evasion, and now, yes, the new Baton Pass clause) should probably be implemented in all official tiers.
 

Pocket

be the upgraded version of me
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
BP clause isn't implemented b/c it's uncompetitive (although people do like to use this term liberally) - there's no luck factors involved in it. It's just an overpowered cheese tactic when used by the right mons. If it was noncompetitive in the same vein as Moody, Evasion, etc, then that assumes it would be universally bad in Doubles or LC, which is not the case at all.
 
First, I do play LC (although I played a lot more in XY than in ORAS), but even if I didn't my point would still stand. The entire point of noncompetitiveness is that it is bad everywhere. There are no "degrees" of noncompetitiveness. If Baton Pass is considered inherently noncompetitive for what it does to team matchup (which it now has been) it should be considered to be noncompetitive everywhere.

And second, Ubers did have evasion legal until quite recently, not that remotely matters to the point either. Know your history before you try to make a point about it haha. Ubers had evasion legal in BW and for all of XY/ORAS until 2 months ago, when shocker of shockers, they determined something that was noncompetitive should be banned, even though it wasn't by any means broken (a lot like Baton Pass in LC).

Banning noncompetitive elements should not be seen as anything other consistently applying the same site-wide philosophy that these things (OHKO, Moody, Evasion, and now, yes, the new Baton Pass clause) should probably be implemented in all official tiers.
The entire BP thread was to establish if it's bad everywhere and it was back and forth arguments as such of it, a lot of emphasis on OU of course across different generations. There's definitely enough of a degree in regards to certain aspects to where tiers will sometimes and should sometimes act on their own accord instead of going with the logic that it's always going to apply everywhere. It was broken down with various types of BP to focus on the stronger points of it that would warrant such a ban / clause.

Going to ignore the immature shot you threw at me about history as if you had a legitimate base to say it. An esteemed moderator such as yourself should clearly know better but I guess not n_n

Keyword, probably, not definitely. It's fine if clauses such a these are followed by other tiers to form consistency but if something is not a problem in another tier why implement it in that tier. We don't even have a good definition of competitiveness other than subjective opinions everytime a subject about it is brought up. So saying that LC should fall under the criteria of BP I don't think is fair when they voted as a community that it isn't.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The entire BP thread was to establish if it's bad everywhere and it was back and forth arguments as such of it, a lot of emphasis on OU of course across different generations. There's definitely enough of a degree in regards to certain aspects to where tiers will sometimes and should sometimes act on their own accord instead of going with the logic that it's always going to apply everywhere. It was broken down with various types of BP to focus on the stronger points of it that would warrant such a ban / clause.

Going to ignore the immature shot you threw at me about history as if you had a legitimate base to say it. An esteemed moderator such as yourself should clearly know better but I guess not n_n

Keyword, probably, not definitely. It's fine if clauses such a these are followed by other tiers to form consistency but if something is not a problem in another tier why implement it in that tier. We don't even have a good definition of competitiveness other than subjective opinions everytime a subject about it is brought up. So saying that LC should fall under the criteria of BP I don't think is fair when they voted as a community that it isn't.
If Baton Pass is being banned due to brokenness (which to be fair was never even remotely made clear, I mean geez it came out of a thread titled "uncompetitive strategies"...) then that is a different story and does not necessarily apply to every tier, as I argued in my post at the top of this page. But really, it sure looks like it's being banned for being uncompetitive. And I truly, adamantly believe that if it is seen as uncompetitive it must be seen as uncompetitive everywhere, independent of its tier context. What else does uncompetitive mean, if not harmful to competition? This is separate from brokenness which is inherently context dependent. Shuckle for example was horribly broken in RU, but not remotely so in UU.

Pocket points out Doubles as an exception but I think it's pretty safe to say that Doubles is fundamentally different enough that that is not always the case and universality need not necessarily apply (as I have also argued previously).



Finally, I guess I have a question to pose - this Baton Pass ban that has been enacted... Is it being applied to UU, RU, NU, (and PU)? If not, why not? And if so, why don't they get a say in the matter, but LC does?
 

Raseri

DPP Ubers Enthusiast
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
LC lacks these attributes, and so just because LC isn't tied into the usage system and because Baton Pass teams don't happen to be reliable according to the LC council does not mean that LC should necessarily be exempt from a Baton Pass ban, imo. Unless LC is also going to test other noncompetitive aspects to remove clauses, like Sleep, Evasion, Moody, or OHKO, I don't see why LC gets to be so special when it comes to just Baton Pass and none of the other noncompetitive strategy-limiting clauses.
I really don't understand this, it seems like you're saying that LC should have to nerf baton pass even though it a problem at all, there are so many problems with this line of thinking that I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, LC (as well as many other non OU metagames) lack the Pokemon that can take advantage of these uncompetitive strategies, theres nothing that can fill the role of Espeon in LC, or even in NU. Banning a non-broken strategy just doesn't make sense, considering every metagame has different tools that vary the effectiveness of these "uncompetitive" strategies.

I don't see any reason for LC and Doubles to follow OU bans, and I don't think there is any real argument for them to do so, they have completely different rulesets that massively change how the game is played.

And the point of this thread is to discuss if tiers like UU, RU, and NU should follow the bans put in place by higher tiers. Personally I think they should not, because as I said earlier, the tools that each of these has is different, which changes the effectiveness of strategies a lot, and forcing lower tiers to follow them removes their ability to run themselves (as decisions are being made for them that no one involved in the tier has a say in), as well as removing non broken strategies
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
we're all good here haha. Apparently despite the fact that the thread resulting in the new BP clause was titled "uncompetitive strategies," people who have been objecting to my posts (llamas and ras and some other tier council-type people) have informed me that it is more broken than uncompetitive, as "matchup/teambuilding restriction" fits better as broken. In that case, (as I said above lol), transitivity should not apply with this new Baton Pass ban - no other tier should be forced to adopt it just because of what OU has done. If LC wants to keep Torchic pass around, that should be fine, so long as it is not broken (as apparently it is not uncompetitive either.)

23:19 bughouse just say it's broken IN OU
23:20 bughouse like you would any other mon that gets banned
23:20 bughouse meanwhile RU can independently call it broken there too, etc
23:20 bughouse or not, if they don't want to
23:20 Raseri thats what i want
23:20 Raseri

23:21 bughouse I just want to make clear that under the assumption I had (which I think was a fair one...) it was being banned as uncompetitive
23:21 bughouse which is a whole nother story
23:21 Raseri oki things make sense now
23:21 Raseri uncompetitive is rly just a buzzword for most people

I still do think, in the future, that uncompetitive things should be universally banned, even in LC/Ubers/Doubles. Now that Ubers has come on board with Evasion I think there is already uniformity in this regard, with the exception of Swagger, which is legal still in Doubles (cough rest of Doubles council plz just ban Swagger already...)
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Finally, I guess I have a question to pose - this Baton Pass ban that has been enacted... Is it being applied to UU, RU, NU, (and PU)? If not, why not? And if so, why don't they get a say in the matter, but LC does?
Just talked to Oglemi and he confirmed that for UU / RU / NU non-pokemon bans are opt out, meaning that we do get a say in the matter. However, I believe all of the tier leaders (I don't speak for everyone so don't hold me to this!) of these tiers are okay with the bp clause that is being implemented.
 
Last edited:

Pocket

be the upgraded version of me
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Maybe if Swagger was a spread confusion move (just like Dark Void was for Sleep), we would have a similar problematic scenario as observed in Singles. However, as long as there is one lucid member, the player still has significant amount of control in the game.

Bughouse, you are right in saying that Doubles is fundamentally different from Singles. What may be an uncompetitive scenario in Singles, may be more mundane in Doubles. This is why we ended up not following the traditional Sleep Clause, b/c it was unnecessary (although one can argue that Sleep Spam is "broken," rather than uncompetitive, in Singles). The Doubles Council probably should evaluate each of the clauses and bans that restricts uncompetitive strategies in Singles under the context of Doubles and act accordingly (as we had been doing).

If Swagger demonstrates to exacerbate chance effects in a Doubles match to an intolerable degree, then something needs to be done. However, the classic Swagger ban would be sub-optimal, b/c Safeguard/Lum + Swagger is a legitimate strategy in Doubles. We shouldn't simply ban based on conjecture, especially when we are having no problems without said ban. I believe the actions taken by the council to handle the Gravity + Sleep clause is just fine (although maybe more discussion and community participation (suspect tests) may be more desirable for Swagger).
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top