-
The moderators of this forum are Finchinator, Ruft, ausma, 658Greninja, kd458, FayaWizard, Srn, TPP, and viivian.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
yeah I know all of this, I'm saying that with the current smogon culture, your abstain is not going to sound like a protest, its gonna sound like youre just grinding for tc badge. which i really dont think its bad and the people getting mad at it on the abstain thread made 2 months ago were funny to watch lol. But if you want abstain back for any form of protest, theres better ways to signify that
i do think abstains should always exist because until the tc badge is reformed or removed, people will always grind for it while not giving a shit about the tiers theyre grinding for. at least make them not mess with rhe result
Last edited by a moderator:
to the extent that any collective decision-making technically counts as "politics", sure, i guess? but i didn't bring up politics on a nation-state level at all, that was injected into the conversation by someone else. please calm down
the difference is fairly easy to spot in our current system because we have discussion threads where someone can say "i'm not voting because [reason]" and air out their grievances or doubts in a much more specific and productive way than grinding on ladder (and potentially delaying or ending the suspect runs of other, actually invested people) just to flush their vote down the toilet
Last edited by a moderator:
My logic is that an abstain vote simply does not represent any meaningful information at that point. The point of laddering for Reqs from a voting permission perspective is to gain experience with the Meta that lets you make an informed decision on casting your vote for one or the other outcome: if you can’t decide then ultimately it didn’t accomplish that and your vote isn’t predicated on your ladder experience.
Where the TC badge is concerned, I also feel that shouldn’t matter: if you abstain, you didn’t vote for an outcome, therefore have not contributed to the tiering process unless your vote existing affects the number the ratio is based on (i.e. needing 60% of 251 votes instead of 250 even though it was neither Ban/DNB)
Where the TC badge is concerned, I also feel that shouldn’t matter: if you abstain, you didn’t vote for an outcome, therefore have not contributed to the tiering process unless your vote existing affects the number the ratio is based on (i.e. needing 60% of 251 votes instead of 250 even though it was neither Ban/DNB)
abstain being removed is honestly good i think; it literally doesnt do anything of value except allowing impartial people (the centrists of smogon, if you will) to get tier contributor. have opinions, damnit!!!
the only reason anyone will ever vote abstain is to get TC without having to think of what to vote.
like there is no other reason.
"waow protest votes!!!! apathy!!!!"
why did you get reqs if you dont give a fuck
idk it seems a little dumb
An “abstain” option without TC contribution would help in banning mons. I heard people saying that they would vote DNB on Kyurem because they’re neutral about it. Maybe if this option existed, Kyurem would be banned (not saying Kyu should be banned, just theorizing). However, the idea of an abstain option seems dumb to me. If you don’t care, don’t get reqs. If you want to play 40 games, just do it on a pre-existing account. I don’t understand the protest thing either, what are you protesting? It’s just mons bru. Also no one’s going to care about your abstain vote anyway, you’re wasting your own time gettimg reqs for nothing. If you want to “protest” make a forum post.
Roaring Moon @ Heavy-Duty Boots
Ability: Protosynthesis
Tera Type: Bug
EVs: 248 HP / 68 Def / 192 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Knock Off
- Taunt
- Roost
- U-turn
Roaring Moon @ Heavy-Duty Boots
Ability: Protosynthesis
Tera Type: Bug
EVs: 248 HP / 68 Def / 192 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Knock Off
- Taunt
- Roost
- U-turn
love me some hoopa unbound love, this sets looks so fun
exactly, the badge is called "tiering contributor", not "ladder hero". it's only logical that to get it you have to actually contribute to tiering, not just get the reqs and sit there like a lemon watching tiering pass you by. abstain votes contribute nothing
now can we please go back to talking about the meta instead of arguing about the merits of a policy that was finalized months ago and is very likely permanent?
Last edited:
Not really part of the debate about having an option to abstain or not (And I will not elaborate on that topic) But talking about politics or making references to it (example someone using a "martial law" joke about Kyurem while stuff was happening in South Korea) is kinda cringe ngl. Like we can separate a competitive VIDEO GAME from real world issues. I actually think stuff like that should be banned from the thread.
On another note, glad to see Palafin was banned. Saturating the tier wasn't the path to take and, while I usually think we should wait until the tier develops from one suspect / ban to another, in this case nothing changed (as I said two weeks ago in a post, I honestly think this was a waste of time) in this case we could for something rational and stop debating about Palafin, Solgaleo, Lugia, Zamazenta- Shield face etcetera
On another note, glad to see Palafin was banned. Saturating the tier wasn't the path to take and, while I usually think we should wait until the tier develops from one suspect / ban to another, in this case nothing changed (as I said two weeks ago in a post, I honestly think this was a waste of time) in this case we could for something rational and stop debating about Palafin, Solgaleo, Lugia, Zamazenta- Shield face etcetera
Our method of testing Palafin has been pretty interesting to me for a certain reason.
What if for suspects, the change, whether that be banning or unbanning a pokemon, was temporarily made to the ladder, or people were given the opportunity to play it somehow in a side tournament? After all, most people that actually have investment in the tier have probably been playing the tier in its prior state, and actually seeing the changes in action would probably make exploration into the consequences of a decision a lot more feasible.
There's obviously the Palafin suspect where people were able to figure out pretty much everything about its interaction with the current metagame. I think the metagame when Kyurem was temporarily banned wasn't so bad either, and maybe people would've had differing opinions if they had a chance to play the tier like that.
I'm not actually proposing that this should be the case, as I think it'd come with more downsides than benefits, but it'd be nice if there was some magical way to implement it, and let us see if the changes make the tier better.
What if for suspects, the change, whether that be banning or unbanning a pokemon, was temporarily made to the ladder, or people were given the opportunity to play it somehow in a side tournament? After all, most people that actually have investment in the tier have probably been playing the tier in its prior state, and actually seeing the changes in action would probably make exploration into the consequences of a decision a lot more feasible.
There's obviously the Palafin suspect where people were able to figure out pretty much everything about its interaction with the current metagame. I think the metagame when Kyurem was temporarily banned wasn't so bad either, and maybe people would've had differing opinions if they had a chance to play the tier like that.
I'm not actually proposing that this should be the case, as I think it'd come with more downsides than benefits, but it'd be nice if there was some magical way to implement it, and let us see if the changes make the tier better.
We kind of got this with Kyurem when it was banned for two weeks before respawning. It is interesting for sure
Ban jokes, ban humour, but also this is a videogame, not serious
There is nothing more dichotomic than a ban/do not ban vote in SVOU. Either the mon deserves to get banned or it doesn't, and if you think "neither side is the correct outcome" then you don't actually believe there is a correct outcome. But then you don't believe in the principle of excluded middle so go argue with logicians instead.
So let's suppose that either one thing or its negation is true and that a pokemon is banworthy or not. So if you get reqs and can't decide which one it is so you want there to be a third option... you are not actually contributing.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. I disagree here because if the vote was truly "neutral" they simply would not elect to make a vote. Why are those "swing" votes unrepresentative of the result for the community? On top of this, it's fairly common for results to be decided before every single vote is cast (even if the margin is on-the-line), so it's not frequent that the outcome comes down to someone confirming Reqs but then waiting to the point of being a deciding vote. Abstain votes either devalue the votes actually taking a side (by reducing their proportional presence) or end up no different than late-but-for-contributor Votes that come after the result is foregone.
2. Advertising you got Reqs and then not selecting one of the binary choices adds nothing to the conversation process. Anyone else voting should be deciding based on their own experiences and criteria, the only requirement being to make Reqs on an alt, so what meaning is there in stating "I made Reqs but have no leaning to either result"? Taking part in the process is casting a vote inherently, and there are exactly two outcomes (Ban or not Ban); selecting neither is not taking part in the Suspect, it's just playing the ladder normally.
3. How is being a Council Member an "ulterior motive"? If a Council Member has an opinion, they get Reqs and vote like every other player; if they do not have an investment in an outcome, and just want to keep tabs on the state of the ladder, see my previous mention about just not playing on a Suspect Alt. And as I noted for the Tiering bade and extends to the qualified vote: if you want to be treated as an experienced Tiering Contributor, you should take part in the tiering process, which includes actually selecting an outcome. Just because players get Reqs for Clout doesn't mean that motive gets direct accommodation.
One thing I also need to bring up: Abstain votes counting is overcomplicating the tier process when the result is a binary "Do or Do not" action that must reach a threshold of the overall votes (i.e. 60% of votes must be ban), not simply outweigh the other option(s) (i.e. Ban being 49%, Unban 46%, and Abstain 5% resulting in a ban).
Last edited by a moderator:
then it would be more prudent for those people who want to remain neutral to just not get reqs at all! it's literally the easiest thing in the world to just not do anything. why go so far out of your way to not affect the result? just say in the suspect thread that you're not voting if you want everyone to know how cool you are for not caring about things. if you want to be "qualified" on the surveys (to the extent that we even have those anymore), just get good at tours. or hit top 200 or whatever on ladder, that's not even hard, i could probably do it. if you want a badge, get it by actually doing something useful—be creative and draw things, or write analyses, or research, or maintain some resource or other, or larp on smogcord, or be a high-quality poster in these threads instead of this, or—and you might wanna sit down for this one—ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE TIERING PROCESS. if you can't do anything useful, maybe accept that you shouldn't have a badge or clout or whatever it is you're after
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean that touching topics like politics usually derail the conversation outside of SVOU. Most of the time in a non productive way. I don’t think we have to exaggerate it and I also don’t think I’m saying something crazy
I'm not sure what happened to this thread since I last checked it, but suspects tend to be rather a black or or white choice of ban or not. An abstaining vote would likely just favor the status quo all the time. Most suspects would result in do not ban since abstaining isn't a ban vote. 60% ban is also a higher threshold to reach than 41% no ban. Suspects for Uber drop like Palafin would likely stay banned, since abstaining isn't a yes.
Why not just vote for the status quo if you are going to get reqs only to abstain? Because that is essentially what you would be doing.
Why not just vote for the status quo if you are going to get reqs only to abstain? Because that is essentially what you would be doing.
If you want to show that you are still undecided after qualifying, make a post in the qualified discussion section expressing the points of why a qualified player is still undecided about the target, and do not vote. Suggest that other undecided qualified players do the same.
You will not receive a count towards the TC Badge, but it is the best way to contribute to the tier with your effort and experience playing a suspect.
You will not receive a count towards the TC Badge, but it is the best way to contribute to the tier with your effort and experience playing a suspect.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with abstention is that voting is not really a contribution, and the badge is not called Suspects Participant. And yes, I agree that a minority gets reqs for TC purposes, but even some of them seek to vote in a way that contributes to development for the tier, when decided and informed.
It's not so broken that we need to reform it imo. I understand your concern, but we already have a 60% majority margin (which I hope changes to 55% in the next generation), a margin that guarantees the community's desire to change the status quo by ensuring in cases of multi-accounts, indecisive votes or votes only TC Badge.
It's not so broken that we need to reform it imo. I understand your concern, but we already have a 60% majority margin (which I hope changes to 55% in the next generation), a margin that guarantees the community's desire to change the status quo by ensuring in cases of multi-accounts, indecisive votes or votes only TC Badge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ultimately if you are voting, you are on-the-hook for what influence your vote has on the outcome, no asterisks or conditions. If you cast a vote just for clout, you're influencing the result and left to responsibility for it whether you care about it or just want the badge/clout/qualified vote. Another point there is that the result is not choosing 1 of several NEW outcomes, it either is change or don't change, so if you're "unsure" at the end, your vote is effectively for a "same" status because you aren't convinced to commit to changing he Status Quo (which is a valid way to feel, but doesn't warrant introducing an "abstain" voting option since it represents next to nothing different in spirit or practice).
Last edited by a moderator:
first off, yes i did hate yanmega in ru, fuck yanmega, bullshit ass uncompetitive flinchbug. second off, i do care about other tiers and i've got investment in them outside of suspects, thank you very much, there are plenty of people from the discords of natdex and lower tiers who can attest to that. i might not post in every thread like i do in this one, but that doesn't mean i care any less about those tiers. i've explained my positions in the suspect threads of every suspect i've done (except for the hoopa-u one, i forgot). when i'm not actually invested in a suspect—like, for example, meloetta's recent one in pu—i just don't do it. don't project your clout-chasing onto me. if i wanted clout i'd already have it
Last edited by a moderator:
Just wanted to quickly chime in and say that the idea to visually update the sample teams thread with stars for difficulty as well as icons for the pokemon in the Pokepastes in question was an awesome quality of life feature. It's not a new concept by any means, but it just looks neat, and sometimes, that's what matters. The stars to also help people better gauge the harder to pick up and play teams was also a nice touch.
Actual metagame discussion time! I've personally been warming up to Clefable more and more as of recent. Being a switch in to things like status and Salt Cure has felt good, and being hazard immune without running the heavy tims is something I don't think about until I see it in action. I'm beginning to see more and more of the value in these "workhorse" pokemon that ain't flashy, but are still good nonetheless. Any other example like that you guys want to mention?
Actual metagame discussion time! I've personally been warming up to Clefable more and more as of recent. Being a switch in to things like status and Salt Cure has felt good, and being hazard immune without running the heavy tims is something I don't think about until I see it in action. I'm beginning to see more and more of the value in these "workhorse" pokemon that ain't flashy, but are still good nonetheless. Any other example like that you guys want to mention?
The fact that we can’t talk about the most minor of tiering policy decisions without resorting to ad-hominem attacks both ways is kind of ridiculous. We’re calling each other clout-chasers and telling each other to get good over… the policy behind abstention votes and the tiering contributor badge? Really? We’re better than this, I would hope.