Approved by Hogg
Recently the Zamazenta-Crowned suspect test concluded in SS OU which was a big occasion since it was the first time since Kyurem-Black that a Pokemon which started in Ubers was tested down to OU. This suspect test used the 50%+1 unban threshold as this thread regarding changing the unban percentage of council bans was the closest thing to precedent. This came with a lot of confusion as Zamazenta-Crowned was not a council ban nor a retest of a quick ban and so technically didn't fall under the policy set by Hogg in this thread. The only other example, Kyurem Black's suspect test, was conducted all the way back in 2012 when tiering and suspect tests were handled relatively differently than they are today so any precedent set back then is shaky at best.
Now the purpose of the new policy around the 50%+1 on council bans was mostly to circumvent council manipulation as quick banning a mon and then retesting it only required 40% of voters to vote keep Ubers, where as a suspect test out of OU would require the normal 60% to ban. This would not be relevant for Pokemon which started in Ubers. It was also stated in the thread linked above that the 60% figure was an extension of the process of banning a suspected Pokemon, as changing the status quo by removing something from a metagame should require a supermajority. I believe that unbanning a Pokemon which has never been OU in the current generation would fall moreso in line with this description than the one provided for using a 50%+1 majority.
Having it be easier to ban a Pokemon from OU than to unban an Uber seems incorrect which is why my personal suggestion would be to require a 60% unban majority vote for Pokemon which started in Ubers. Pokemon which were previously OU, but banned by council vote, would still require the same 50% majority upon being retested. I know this has been a pretty hot topic of discussion with the Zamazenta-C test happening recently and while it isn't likely to be a situation that crops up often, hashing out a defined policy while it is somewhat relevant will be a great help should this situation ever come up again in the future.
Recently the Zamazenta-Crowned suspect test concluded in SS OU which was a big occasion since it was the first time since Kyurem-Black that a Pokemon which started in Ubers was tested down to OU. This suspect test used the 50%+1 unban threshold as this thread regarding changing the unban percentage of council bans was the closest thing to precedent. This came with a lot of confusion as Zamazenta-Crowned was not a council ban nor a retest of a quick ban and so technically didn't fall under the policy set by Hogg in this thread. The only other example, Kyurem Black's suspect test, was conducted all the way back in 2012 when tiering and suspect tests were handled relatively differently than they are today so any precedent set back then is shaky at best.
Now the purpose of the new policy around the 50%+1 on council bans was mostly to circumvent council manipulation as quick banning a mon and then retesting it only required 40% of voters to vote keep Ubers, where as a suspect test out of OU would require the normal 60% to ban. This would not be relevant for Pokemon which started in Ubers. It was also stated in the thread linked above that the 60% figure was an extension of the process of banning a suspected Pokemon, as changing the status quo by removing something from a metagame should require a supermajority. I believe that unbanning a Pokemon which has never been OU in the current generation would fall moreso in line with this description than the one provided for using a 50%+1 majority.
Having it be easier to ban a Pokemon from OU than to unban an Uber seems incorrect which is why my personal suggestion would be to require a 60% unban majority vote for Pokemon which started in Ubers. Pokemon which were previously OU, but banned by council vote, would still require the same 50% majority upon being retested. I know this has been a pretty hot topic of discussion with the Zamazenta-C test happening recently and while it isn't likely to be a situation that crops up often, hashing out a defined policy while it is somewhat relevant will be a great help should this situation ever come up again in the future.
