np: OU Suspect Testing Round 3 - So Long and Thanks for all the Fish

[Ulevo]

Since this thread seems to have degenerated to a tug-of-war between Thorhammer and Ulevo:

Why don't you two just stop flinging excrement at each other (and before you retaliate by doing the same to me: You'll see when you read through the last 4 pages of your posts!), calm down and state your exact desires in a comprehensive post each that does not incorporate the defense of any of your positions against outside attacks, be they unjustified or not.

Then maybe we can all try to agree on a compromise.

Maybe if you paid attention to those posts you'd realize they are more than mere "excrement". My posts have intention and purpose behind them. They're not posted if its not necessary to what I'm trying to promote, and unlike what you seem to suggest, I don't think I've gone out of my way to make any provokative or derogatory comments.

Looking at Thorhammers posts, I don't see any indication of what you're suggesting there either.

Anyway, since you want a concise or comprehensive post of my desires, they're the exactly what Thorhammers were, with the exclusion of having to achieve them through a complex ban of any kind; simple bans and clauses only.

Not all complex bans are equally feasible.

I'm arguing that none are really feasible because of the road it leads to, which is what I was making an example of. I realize some are more ridiculous than others, but none are concise and they leave room for interpretation as to where to stop and what is and isn't acceptable.

Has it? I don't recall seeing any recent decisions on the matter. Certainly not since Aldaron's proposal was passed.

I have never attempted to act as if I represent the desires of the community. However, I am certainly not just representing my own desires and ideas. I am advocating logic, which is universal whether or not it fits with peoples' desires.

We don't actually know what the community wants. Perhaps we should find out.

It was mostly discussed in DoughjustDoug's sticky of Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame.

Anyway, while logic is universally comprehended (or it should be, ideally), it helps to explain the thought process behind it. Clarity was all I was pointing to.

 

[alexwolf]

And how are you deciding what is and isn't undesirable, Thorhammer? To me it seems like you're making these conditions up as it suits your argument. What standards am I supposed to presume you're using to coming to such a conclusion.


Also, the last time PR had to make a major decision involving precedent, Phil had to intervene and overrule a majority.

Don't count on other people doing things for you.

he isn't deciding arbitary what is undesirable...i answered this question to you before....but you just ignored it...
so i will say it 'till you get it...
evasion raising abilities deserve to get banned in the same manner and principle that the evasion items were,and generally all the evasion rasing factors like moves,items abilties etc...
the only difference between the items and the abilities is that the abilities need their respective weather to have any effect...that's why banning them in combination with their weather is a good solution without taking nothing out from the metagame....

 

[Hallow]

Maybe if you paid attention to those posts you'd realize they are more than mere "excrement". My posts have intention and purpose behind them. They're not posted if its not necessary to what I'm trying to promote, and unlike what you seem to suggest, I don't think I've gone out of my way to make any provokative or derogatory comments.

It's a figure of speech, my dear hot-headed friend.

All I suggested was that it might be better if you'd just stop trying to defend your position, because (and I don't mean to say you are not using valid arguments) the need to defend your opinion often compromises the ability to find common ground. I wanted to make that easier. So why don't you stop for a second and just tell us what you want?

 

[Ulevo]

he isn't deciding arbitary what is undesirable...i answered this question to you before....but you just ignored it...
so i will say it 'till you get it...
evasion raising abilities deserve to get banned in the same manner and principle that the evasion items were,and generally all the evasion rasing factors like moves,items abilties etc...
the only difference between the items and the abilities is that the abilities need their respective weather to have any effect...that's why banning them in combination with their weather is a good solution without taking nothing out from the metagame....

Do you even know what I was talking to Thorhammer about in response to?

Complicating the ruleset to this extent is not undesirable, and we can prevent the precedent from extending to bans that are complex to the point of being undesirable by having the people in PR get off their asses and make a decision about the official view towards complex bans now that we've had one for the past three months.

Read the bolded sentence. I'm not arguing that Evasion is undesirable; it's blatantly obvious few people really want it around. I was referring to his mention on how complicating the ruleset was not undesirable.

It's a figure of speech, my dear hot-headed friend.

All I suggested was that it might be better if you'd just stop trying to defend your position, because (and I don't mean to say you are not using valid arguments) the need to defend your opinion often compromises the ability to find common ground. I wanted to make that easier. So why don't you stop for a second and just tell us what you want?

I'm not concerned about the 'integrity of my opinion'. I'm concerned about its validity. That's what debates are about. If you can't defend your opinion, its because you don't have a valid one, in which you don't have a case and can't convince people you're debating with to see your point of view.

I do it only for that reason. It isn't anything personal. It isn't about being hot headed either.

 

[Thorhammer]

I'm arguing that none are really feasible because of the road it leads to, which is what I was making an example of. I realize some are more ridiculous than others, but none are concise and they leave room for interpretation as to where to stop and what is and isn't acceptable.

I believe a decision from PR can prevent us from making harmful interpretations and therefore from going any farther down that road than the bans that are otherwise harmless.

It was mostly discussed in DoughjustDoug's sticky of Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame.

I haven't read much of the discussion there, but the last post in that discussion was over a year ago. I think it's time to try again to figure out whether or not any complex bans should be permitted, and if so, which ones can be allowed.

Anyway, while logic is universally comprehended (or it should be, ideally), it helps to explain the thought process behind it. Clarity was all I was pointing to.

Alright then. So is there anything more you would like me to say about those statements than the clarity I've given so far?

Read the bolded sentence. I'm not arguing that Evasion is undesirable; it's blatantly obvious few people really want it around. I was referring to his mention on how complicating the ruleset was not undesirable.

This illustrates an interesting difference of viewpoints. It seems to me that we should always seek the ideal metagame. If this Evasion is undesirable, I feel that we should first establish that it must be banned, then after that we can worry about finding the best way to ban it. I don't think a problem with a solution is a reason to leave the problem as it is; it's a reason to modify the solution to work around the problem. This is why I'm reluctant to agree with statements that complex bans should be avoided entirely.

This is not necessarily to say that your standpoint is the opposite. Actually, I can't remember what you were saying would be the best way to proceed from here. However, I'm curious what your thoughts on all of this are.

---

Not sure how well I've been conveying this in my posts, but I'm very glad for these discussions, especially between the two of us. I've been learning a lot about both my own standpoints and yours from these discussions, and I get the idea the same is true for you. I feel like some of my inquiries, statements, and requests might come off as accusatory or otherwise confrontational, but I assure you that my intent is always to reach a greater understanding.

 

[Hallow]

I'm not concerned about the 'integrity of my opinion'. I'm concerned about its validity. That's what debates are about. If you can't defend your opinion, its because you don't have a valid one, in which you don't have a case and can't convince people you're debating with to see your point of view.

I do it only for that reason. It isn't anything personal. It isn't about being hot headed either.

*cough*

Then how about you accept my proposal and state your opinion right here, right now, without any other remarks?

 

[Ulevo]

*cough*

Then how about you accept my proposal and state your opinion right here, right now, without any other remarks?

I did. Remarks or not, its there for your viewing pleasure.

Since you seem keen on productive debate, I'll ignore this discussion going forward, since it isn't going anywhere. I already stated my opinion.

 

[Hallow]

So at current,

I desire for all reasonable potential for Evasion abuse to be removed from all Pokemon in the metagame,
without any of those Pokemon being banned entirely for that reason.

yet

I'd never advocate yet another complex ban.

So what do we do?

 

[Ulevo]

So at current,



yet



So what do we do?

My original recommendation; we wait.

The only real pressing concern this pertains to in OU is Garchomp. When Garchomp and Cacturn are given their alternate Dream World abilities, we can ban Sand Veil while satisfying all parties.

Also. When Dream World Chubchoo and Snorunt are released, we can apply the same thing to Snow Cloak.

 

[Hallow]

My original recommendation; we wait.

The only real pressing concern this pertains to in OU is Garchomp. When he and Cacturn are given their alternate Dream World abilities, we can ban Sand Veil while satisfying all parties.

Problem: People will hack around on this option due to impatience and might even enforce some rash decision or other. Therefore, I advocate the implementation of a temporary security valve to protect Pokémon from being banned and the impatient ones from getting mauled by Sand Veil.

Question is: What?

EDIT: On second thought, the ability ban will smash the movepool of the affected Pokemon...

 

[Thorhammer]

My original recommendation; we wait.

The only real pressing concern this pertains to in OU is Garchomp. When Garchomp and Cacturn are given their alternate Dream World abilities, we can ban Sand Veil while satisfying all parties.

Also. When Dream World Chubchoo and Snorunt are released, we can apply the same thing to Snow Cloak.

What would you think of accepting my proposed complex ban for the time being, with the understanding that we would remove it and revert it to your suggested simple ban once those alternate abilities are released?

 

[Ulevo]

Problem: People will hack around on this option due to impatience and might even enforce some rash decision or other. Therefore, I advocate the implementation of a temporary security valve to protect Pokémon from being banned and the impatient ones from getting mauled by Sand Veil.

Question is: What?

EDIT: On second thought, the ability ban will smash the movepool of the affected Pokemon...

Uh, who cares if people hack around it? Smogon isn't supporting that, and as far as anyone else is concerned, if someone on WiFi is using illegal rules or rules not agreed to by both parties, that isn't the fault of Smogon or its policy. That's the players problem, and they need to handle it. There isn't a difference between players hacking abilities and players hacking 255 EVs in every stat.

Unless I misinterpreted your use of the word hack.

Anyway. Pokemon won't get banned. Sand Veil is not problematic in of itself to a point where it warrants banning just Garchomp, because Garchomp itself isn't that much of a problem. The impatients ones are just that; impatient. I'd like to provide a solution, but the fact is that they have to wait, or come up with a justifiable reason as to why Garchomp needs to go.

There is no other logical route unless you want to form yet another complex ban.

What would you think of accepting my proposed complex ban for the time being, with the understanding that we would remove it and revert it to your suggested simple ban once those alternate abilities are released?

I've thought about this. Since you've suggested it, and compromises need to be made at least if a single agreement can't be reached, it isn't a bad plan. But I don't like having to resort to it because its another complex ban on Smogons track record to refer back to in the event someone wants to promote another one. It's another justification for the use of complex bans is what I am trying to say. But it is again a reasonable compromise.

 

[Hallow]

You indeed misinterpreted it. I said "hack around on it" and was trying to imply they would rant about it. Sorry for this inaccuracy. English is not my native language, you understand, so I tend to import foreign figures of speech.

I for one would support Thorhammer's suggestion of a temporary complex ban, and changing it to a complete Sand Veil ban later on.

Who knows, maybe Roost will become a tutor move in Grey, so Gliscor might become good again...

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Gliscor had Hyper Cutter in DPPt. Sandshrew, lolGlaceon, Cacturne, Froslass and Garchomp are the ones which would be soft-banned OR have their movepool screwed up by a blanket ban.

and lol Gliscor has never been in better shape

 

[Thorhammer]

I've thought about this. Since you've suggested it, and compromises need to be made at least if a single agreement can't be reached, it isn't a bad plan. But I don't like having to resort to it because its another complex ban on Smogons track record to refer back to in the event someone wants to promote another one. It's another justification for the use of complex bans is what I am trying to say. But it is again a reasonable compromise.

Hm... I think, again, that that would really depend on a more clear, official decision. If it were simply voted into effect with an unofficial understanding that it would probably be removed, you're right. However, if there were an official discussion, vote and decision that concluded that as long as those versions are eventually released, the ban would absolutely not be permanent, I think the message would be clear. I'm sure that we would find ourselves encountering a few idiots saying that it can be used as justification for more complex bans, but there have always been people arguing for complex bans even with nothing that can even be made to appear to be a complex ban in the past, so I don't think it'd be any different. 95% of the people here would recognize that it sets no precedent for permanent complex bans, and that the only precedent it would set is for temporary complex bans.

Again, I really believe we need an official decision with regard to complex bans as a whole, so we have a concrete place to work from. I don't think we'll get anywhere with regard to anything without it.

Who knows, maybe Roost will become a tutor move in Grey, so Gliscor might become good again...

Gliscor is a non-issue. Gliscor from Gen 4 don't necessarily have the ability Sand Veil; they can also have the ability Hyper Cutter. Besides, Poison Heal Gliscor has shown itself to be far better than any previous incarnation of Gliscor, and in fact one of the top Pokemon of the metagame even with the loss of Roost and Stealth Rock.

Gliscor had Hyper Cutter in DPPt. Sandshrew, lolGlaceon, Cacturne, Froslass and Garchomp as the ones which would be soft-banned OR have their movepool screwed by a blanket ban.

and lol Gliscor has never been in better shape

Also Beartic, which admittedly is a bit of an issue, since it's from Gen 5.

Glaceon would have movepool issues without Snow Cloak, but if and when DW Eevee is released, things might change...

 

[Hallow]

Gliscor had Hyper Cutter in DPPt. Sandshrew, lolGlaceon, Cacturne, Froslass and Garchomp as the ones which would be soft-banned OR have their movepool screwed by a blanket ban.

and lol Gliscor has never been in better shape

*adjusts monocle*

Yoops. I imported that mistake from earlier in the thread. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Ulevo]

Hm... I think, again, that that would really depend on a more clear, official decision. If it were simply voted into effect with an unofficial understanding that it would probably be removed, you're right. However, if there were an official discussion, vote and decision that concluded that as long as those versions are eventually released, the ban would absolutely not be permanent, I think the message would be clear. I'm sure that we would find ourselves encountering a few idiots saying that it can be used as justification for more complex bans, but there have always been people arguing for complex bans even with nothing that can even be made to appear to be a complex ban in the past, so I don't think it'd be any different. 95% of the people here would recognize that it sets no precedent for permanent complex bans, and that the only precedent it would set is for temporary complex bans.

Again, I really believe we need an official decision with regard to complex bans as a whole, so we have a concrete place to work from. I don't think we'll get anywhere with regard to anything without it.

Well, lets be honest here. The only reason we're discussing a complex ban right now as a possible solution is all more than likely because we just implemented a complex ban a month or so ago. Before Aldaron made his proposal, suggestions of complex bans were unheard of, and yet here we are.

The implications I am concerned of are that if we decide to implement more, complex bans will be more go-to solutions as opposed to last resort solutions, as all bans should be. I feel you can understand this when you consider that since we opened the democratic opportunity to players to vote to ban a Pokemon in Gen IV, we've seen more Pokemon being called to suspect than ever.

Snowball effect, essentially.

 

[Hallow]

Well, lets be honest here. The only reason we're discussing a complex ban right now as a possible solution is all more than likely because we just implemented a complex ban a month or so ago. Before Aldaron made his proposal, suggestions of complex bans were unheard of, and yet here we are.

The implications I am concerned of are that if we decide to implement more, complex bans will be more go-to solutions as opposed to last resort solutions, as all bans should be. I feel you can understand this when you consider that since we opened the democratic opportunity to players to vote to ban a Pokemon in Gen IV, we've seen more Pokemon being called to suspect than ever.

Snowball effect, essentially.

Idea: Implement social ban on Sand Veil Chomphax.
Everytime somebody does it, hurl an insult at them and immediately ragequit, and when they come to the forums to whine about the sudden influx of immaturity, send them off by informing them that it's an official decision.

 

[Thorhammer]

Well, lets be honest here. The only reason we're discussing a complex ban right now as a possible solution is all more than likely because we just implemented a complex ban a month or so ago. Before Aldaron made his proposal, suggestions of complex bans were unheard of, and yet here we are.

The implications I am concerned of are that if we decide to implement more, complex bans will be more go-to solutions as opposed to last resort solutions, as all bans should be. I feel you can understand this when you consider that since we opened the democratic opportunity to players to vote to ban a Pokemon in Gen IV, we've seen more Pokemon being called to suspect than ever.

Snowball effect, essentially.

Three months ago. That time sure flies.

And I wouldn't say it's just because of Aldaron's proposal. It's because Aldaron's proposal was accepted without any official decision as to the status of future complex bans, leaving everyone to their own interpretations. The only thing that will help sort through any of this mess is that official decision. Even if we were to remove Aldaron's proposal now, without that official decision and without proof to the contrary, anyone who believes complex bans can be reasonably implemented would say that Aldaron's proposal was not removed because of an inherent problem with complex bans, but rather because of problems with the ban of Swift Swim + Drizzle itself, and that other complex bans could still be acceptable. I will state now that I would be among them, as it would be a completely legitimate standpoint.

Idea: Implement social ban on Sand Veil Chomphax.
Everytime somebody does it, hurl an insult at them and immediately ragequit, and when they come to the forums to whine about the sudden influx of immaturity, send them off by informing them that it's an official decision.

No.

 

[asdfrozen]

If we're doing a complex ban for Garchomp/Sand Veil, why didn't we do one for Blaziken/Speed Boost?

 

[Thorhammer]

If we're doing a complex ban for Garchomp/Sand Veil, why didn't we do one for Blaziken/Speed Boost?

No one's suggesting a Garchomp + Sand Veil ban. I'm advocating a Sand Veil + Sand Stream ban, which is a completely different sort of ban than a Blaziken + Speed Boost ban. In terms of complexity, however, it's identical to the existing and accepted Swift Swim + Drizzle ban.

That said, I oppose the existing Swift Swim + Drizzle ban for other reasons, and I think a Blaziken + Speed Boost ban would be reasonable and worth considering. However, I don't think the latter is much of an issue at present either way.

Also relevant, there has been no decision to make a complex ban for Sand Veil + Sand Stream; it's only a suggestion at this point.

 

[asdfrozen]

I thought the controversy over Sand Veil was due to Garchomp and Garchomp only.

 

[Thorhammer]

I thought the controversy over Sand Veil was due to Garchomp and Garchomp only.

As I've been saying, this is false. Garchomp only serves to illustrate the problem that is equally present in all Pokemon with either Sand Veil or Snow Cloak.

 

[Cryo Dragon]

I know you guys are in the middle of an argument but I have a suggestion (not my own originally but it makes sense)

Instead of banning everything you should keep the current ban-list on legendaries, but then release every pokemon, including ones not out yet, as well as all non-5th gen Dream World Abilities, THEN ban, as that would allow the community to figure out what is "uber" with a full pallet of options.

 

[Bilaterus]

Thorhammer, If you miss against a Cacturne, chances are it WON'T setup a sub/SD and then proceed to punish you heavily with pretty much perfect STABs and stats.

EchoDragon, we pretty much did start with only the most uber pokes and then banned the rest after testing.