Metagame 1v1 Old Gens

[DEG]

I will respond to your post regarding ORAS in this thread.
1. I disagree with the surveys serving exclusively as tiebreakers. I agree with the premise that there is a lack of community discussion and that "gather community sentiment when no other discussions are taking place," but it doesn't follow that they need to be relegated to a supplementary role or a call to action. In this case, the survey helped clarify where people stood on the current metagame and give council more information to work with when it came to suspected certain mons. In the absence of substantial metagame discussion, it makes sense to use these tools to get such a picture.
Additionally, this idea that surveys should be "binding"– "Surveys should not be conducted if there is no intention of respecting the outcome"–does not make sense give that the spectrum is not yes/no suspect. Clearly if a survey is unanimous that we should suspect, then I agree that it would be problematic if we didn't. However, if the results are more mixed or less clear (say a 4 and not a 5), it seems perfectly reasonable that council has discretion over the final decision with the survey in mind.

2. I think that the survey results regarding Mew vs. the council outcome is different in regards to the tier from SV. The most recent SV survey had 47 responders, with 23 considered "qualified." In contrast, the ORAS survey had 8 people, only 4 of which were qualified. Most, if not all, of those qualified voters were also on council. This creates the opposite worry which is that the survey may be over-representing those with the power to suspect. With this lack of diversity of opinions, it makes sense to wait until a tour which will provide more qualified voters (and metagame development) to get a better feel for whether or not we should take action. Bans in old gens are extremely sticky, and there is a general philosophy of caution when approaching them due to the smaller playerbase and activity.

3. I agree that there should be more discussion, but with the limited playerbase of old gens this is very difficult. This is especially true when there was just a ban that significantly altered the metagame, so that players who might otherwise have experience with the tier would be considered less qualified if they have not played a tour recently. I think there is a need to distinguish between surveys as the only tool to gauge community feedback and a useful one. Being able to get a quantitative picture of sentiment is useful, and I don't think we should cut ourselves off of that without a very good reason. The model of "Discuss in metagame discussion > more than one option AND ready for tiering action > survey > if favorable results suspect" is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that we know before a survey whether or not something is ready for tiering action. The whole point of a survey is to help clarify if that is the case.

Model leaves room for various edits specially in the old gen department.

However I do think 4/5 is very significant and has nearly unanimousity from the community side that it's actually a dangerous precedent to ignore. There could be an argument for 3 but 4? This is another question, when is the community support enough to actually force suspect.

Also @ the last part, you can initiate discussion as council member so you're aware what the people think deserve tiering action

 

[Synonimous]

However I do think 4/5 is very significant and has nearly unanimousity from the community side that it's actually a dangerous precedent to ignore. There could be an argument for 3 but 4? This is another question, when is the community support enough to actually force suspect.

The one thing I do want to add is that I think we should more clearly define the options on surveys for suspects. Specifically, I think that the range should be:
1. Not an issue
2. Likely not an issue.
3. Potentially an issue in the future, but don't suspect now.
4. Likely an issue now, but don't suspect now.
5. Likely an issue now, suspect now.
Obviously, there's room for overlap. There might be mons that are clearly going to be problematic in the future and should be banned somewhat preemptively, but this is just how I've thought about the numbers. I think that there are many cases where something might be considered problematic, but you wouldn't want to suspect immediately (i.e. the metagame can adapt). Make it more clear what you are voting for should resolve a lot of issues regarding community sentiment about surveys.

 

[Murm]

The one thing I do want to add is that I think we should more clearly define the options on surveys for suspects. Specifically, I think that the range should be:
1. Not an issue
2. Likely not an issue.
3. Potentially an issue in the future, but don't suspect now.
4. Likely an issue now, but don't suspect now.
5. Likely an issue now, suspect now.
Obviously, there's room for overlap. There might be mons that are clearly going to be problematic in the future and should be banned somewhat preemptively, but this is just how I've thought about the numbers. I think that there are many cases where something might be considered problematic, but you wouldn't want to suspect immediately (i.e. the metagame can adapt). Make it more clear what you are voting for should resolve a lot of issues regarding community sentiment about surveys.

I do agree with more clearly defining what each ranking represents, but this is not the way to do it. One should be a clear do not suspect and Five should be a clear do suspect, but Five should not be the only number that represents wanting a suspect. A suspect test is meant to be done when the community is either set on action or is divided, where both sides have a large amount of support, aka Three. Three should be something along the lines of "maybe suspect," I think the most recent SV survey did a good job in that front.