I feel like the best way to go about voting on suspects would be to establish a council of well known/proven to be good LU players that actually know what they are talking about, this eliminates the problems that vuvu was talking about and also allows for a wider range of opinions during a suspect test. It seemed like devo and tyki were always leaning towards a ban for Moltres and they managed to convince Elmo at the end to vote ban too, I know for a fact that if I was involved in that discussion that I would definitely have been able to convince Elmo to stay anti ban but there was no one actually there to really argue with good points for Moltres staying in the tier. So the system I would like to see would consist of 5-7 players, with 3 of them being the tier leaders and the other 2-4 being well known/good ladder players during this time/good suspect posters or whatever criteria you want to use. On a side note if Druddigon gets banned Oak will most definitely be hearing from me lol
The overt power-grab pushing in this thread from people mad about their pokemon being banned is really quite something. Many tier leaders before this have been forced to ban things they don't believe are broken / not ban things they believe are broken. We're a small tier. 3 leaders is enough. Council is a dumb idea. No amount of pressure and bitching is gonna change the fact that the 3 tier leaders, who are all extremely competent tier leaders, weighed up the options, listened to all opinions, and decided for a ban. Just like any other suspect process. also, nice PC++ Zodiac
"I know for a fact I would have convinced Elmo to stay "no ban"" I know 100% that you don't know that, considering it never happened and everything. Clearly what you posted in the thread didn't do it and I guarantee you he read it. Unless you hid your best arguments (in which case why are you complaining your view wasn't heard/enforced when you never put it forward in full). If you think there was "Nobody there to argue that Moltres should stay" you clearly miss the point of having a thread. If you have your council of 5-7 and all of them think a Pokémon should be banned, does that mean the system is flawed because "nobody in that leadership circle was there to argue why it shouldn't be"? To say Tyki was leaning no ban was inaccurate. He didn't know what he wanted to do until like 3 days before Moltres was banned, Devo spoke to him in Indigo and Tyki didn't know what he wanted to do. So I assume he read through the thread and discussed and came to the conclusion Moltres shouldn't stay when he did that.
My problem is that they just make silly statements which makes them look like they dont know what their talking about. Examples: (19:17:38) Tyki: only counter is Munchlax (19:31:40) +Xdevo: I really want Stall to be usuable in LU without getting shit on (both of those statements are false btw) Also they assume that their opponents are complete idiots who cant make the same predictions as they are making. They also think posting calcs on how strong moltres is a good argument. Durant has 0 counters but that doesnt get suspected, i just dont understand.
SO POST ABOUT IT apparently things are supposed to be just suspected based on the tier leaders' psychic connections with a bunch of RU players. jeez. if you wanna see durant suspected, post about it. ask for it to be suspected.
Actually I believe that 2/3 tier leaders are incompetent as i know for a fact several others would agree with me. Also, wtf does this mean...
holy shit someones more annoyed than I am. +1 LO durant with xscissor/superpower/thunder fang has 0 counters. The +1 is when you force something else ie cryo or clefable at best it is phazed out. some very strong calcs cause this is a strong argument: 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant Thunder Fang vs. 252 HP / 240+ Def Qwilfish: 216-255 (64.67 - 76.34%) -- guaranteed 2HKO +1 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant Thunder Fang vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Poliwrath: 273-322 (71.09 - 83.85%) -- guaranteed 2HKO +1 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant Superpower vs. 252 HP / 220+ Def Steelix: 296-351 (83.61 - 99.15%) -- guaranteed 2HKO +1 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant Thunder Fang vs. 104 HP / 252+ Def Alomomola: 307-361 (61.77 - 72.63%) -- guaranteed 2HKO +1 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant X-Scissor vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Rotom: 209-247 (86.36 - 102.06%) -- 18.75% chance to OHKO You can even use iron head if u want to hit misdreavus or w.e. All those mons at best can phaze it out and none of them besides alomomola have reliable recovery so they are basically dead for your sweeper to sweep. Durant has better speed, no sr weakness, and better typing. ban pls (note: I'm not saying durant should be banned but aurist is fucking annoying so heres my argument)
Interestingly enough, we are most likely going to have a Durant suspect in the near future. It was one of the things that we discussed post-moltres since we were all online. What else do you post BUT damage calcs to help show how strong something is? @NB I respect you greatly as a battler. DO NOT assume you can convince me of anything ;) As far as I'm concerned, this discussion about Moltres being banned is over. What's done is done. If we want to have a re-test in the future, fine. But don't continue dragging it on here cause it's not going to do anything. Like I said before, take this up with higher auth. That's the only thing that will give any results at this point.
I won't say that that is a bad idea, but it does seem redundant seeing that the tier leaders ARE well known/good ladder players as well and isn't worth adding additional pressure. Well... [SECRET]Durant's Checks and Counters: Fire Types, Bulky Ghosts, Weezing, any faster Special Attacker (if they exist), Escavalier, Qwilfish. Moltres's Checks and Counters: SR (not a defining factor), Munchlax (situational regardless of tier), Lanturn See the difference in amount of ways to beat it? That's why Moltres went first. I'm not saying that we shouldn't Suspect it (it seems like the next thing to test anyway), just pointing out why Moltres was more of a concern.[/SECRET] So what you're saying is only one Tier Leader is fit for the job and you have friends that can prove it...lolk
I think i see the problem here. It's pretty clear you all want me, the mighty Afro Smash to be the tier leader, but i'm afraid i'm just too busy, and fuck wasting my time tryna convince ass users (aka New Bread) that stuff is broken. But seriously as peeps have said there's no point in complaining about Tier Leaders/Suspect system in this thread, you have to take this to higher auth if you want to see some change.
yup :] i'm pretty pissed that a bunch of shitty RU players think they can come to the LU tier and just boss it around, overtly insult the tier leaders, pretend to represent the LU userbase and demand to get their way. Y'all don't care about LU and making it better, at all. FYI I'm pro a Durant suspect, its ability to easily break defensive and offensive teams (mainly the former) as well as its variety of sets and decent switch in opportunities make it borderline to me.
wtf lol? edit: this post is directed at Nidotheking xd also if youve ever played stall you would know that durant is easier than it looks on paper to deal with. Thats why damage calcs are so biased and make it look like any mon can be god. Magmortar has 0 counters also pls ban smh
Durant is powerful, yep. Whether or not you think Durant is broken is about the same as if you think Moltres is broken, do you think 80</= accuracy on every move is reliable enough, and do you feel that outspeeding, predicting and revenging are valid arguments against it. Moltres is slower than Durant and its rocks weakness mitigates its bulk somewhat, but Durant has much less bulk and less splashable resistances and immunes. Except Dark and Dragon resists, which are useful, and even then 252+ Atk Choice Band Druddigon Dragon Claw vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Durant: 93-109 (36.04 - 42.24%) -- guaranteed 3HKO With SR that's a hefty price to come in on a less than ideal (for the attacker) resisted move. Durant also encounters trouble with Pokémon like Steelix, Entei and most prominently Qwilfish (-1 252 Atk Choice Band Hustle Durant Rock Slide vs. 252 HP / 240+ Def Qwilfish: 95-112 (28.44 - 33.53%) -- possible 4HKO). Durant doesn't come in for free, nor does it always predict perfectly. Anyway none of the tier leaders are "incompetent". Devo is a tier leader because he's shown good suspect logic, a tendency to listen to people's opinions and consider them properly, he's been a trusted person around here for a good while, and for a good reason. Tyki is because he's shown more dedication and interest in LU than 99% of people, he's demonstrated his ability to learn things from people and to formulate good posts and arguments. Being a good player does not mean being a good tier leader, if you think tour records and ladder scores are all that makes a good tier leader, you're an idiot. Elmo I assume is the one you didn't think was incompetent because he was on your side regarding this particular ban at first. Isn't that transparent.
What prediction did i give lol? I said you hone claws against something that switches out against it. (I shouldnt have to list these mons they are numerous) That makes it near 100% accuracy as they send in their supposedly "counter". Then you do between 70%-100% damage to them as they phaze you out or try to burn u. Point being that mon is basically dead. I dont know why you would give a calc with rock slide since no durant should run that move. 252+ Atk Life Orb Feraligatr Waterfall vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Durant: 146-173 (56.58 - 67.05%) -- guaranteed 2HKO 252+ Atk Life Orb Feraligatr Waterfall vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Passho Berry Moltres: 175-207 (54.51 - 64.48%) -- guaranteed 2HKO Durant only has a little less physical bulk than moltres as shown through these calcs. I was talking about the LO honeclaws set not the CB set so i dont know why you are showing me calcs of that. I didnt say any of them were incompetent I said what they say makes them look silly and makes them look like they dont know what they are talking about, when they probably do. I posted those logs because those are some logs I noticed that looked very silly to me. I didnt post any said by elmo because in that discussion he didnt say anything silly, he generally made simple statements agreeing with the other 2. Also Moltres was using 85% and 70% moves your that point about accuracy is invalid because durant has 80% moves and can help that accuracy via hone claws. Also the entei calc: 252 Atk Life Orb Hustle Durant Superpower vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Entei: 257-304 (69.27 - 81.94%) -- 56.25% chance to OHKO after Stealth Rock Thats not even with hone claws boost so I dont see your point. If you feel like you dont know enough pokemon that durant can set up on I'll be happy to list them for you. Edit: I agree with you that durant isn't that huge of a threat in practice, but since I was able to throw out some fancy calcs it makes it look unstoppable.
My complaint is that I saw not a single coherent refutation of the large list of points regarding Moltres' suspect status, as not broken as posted in the thread, discussed in the log the tier leaders have posted. I have requested them to justify their decision to ban Moltres beyond what I view as a very poor discussion on its merits as a Pokemon that is broken or not, something they have as of yet declined to do. The log in particular greatly appeared to be xdevo railroading his beliefs onto the other tier leaders, which leads to the calls for revision to the system as it removes the possibility of such singular influence over the fate of the tier. I believe it is valid to call into question the ability of the tier leaders when they fail to adequately demonstrate that they have taken all possible arguments into account when evaluating a suspect. I do have faith that they are capable of doing so, but thus far they have failed to prove that Moltres is broken or to take into account many of the arguments presented in the thread. Furthermore I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a tier leader to abstain on a vote when you have such a small sample of decision makers, you have the responsibility to make your choice and your opinion known in a three-man system. (sidebar re: Aurist, I've played LU for over a year, captained my team in POWC playing LU, and have proven myself a successful player in the tier. As well, my logical posts in the suspect thread should demonstrate that I do in fact care about the tier, RU player or not. Things are not so black and white.)
Again, sorry if rude or anything. Just trying to express my feelings in words that may not come out right. Is this taking in consideration bias or no? EDIT: Ugh I feel like I'm not saying my point clearly enough. With Moltres banned we're getting hate, and if we didn't ban Moltres we would also probably get hate. We are planning on suspecting Durant after we decide on Druddigon, but WE ALSO GOT HATE FOR HAVING 2 SUSPECTS UP AT THE SAME TIME. Seriously guys, take a chill pill. I know that I am personally trying my hardest to make everyone happy, and frankly, I cannot. @Double01, please prove why they are untrue instead of saying that they are just untrue. Proof like "Specs Moltres is a wallbreaker" and "My team won with Stall" are not proof.
This is exactly what I saw and is the reason why something needs to change, the fact that Moltres who is arguably one of the more controversial suspects was unanimously banned just goes to show that the system is flawed. @Weavile The reason I know for a fact that I could have convinced Elmo to stay anti ban is because the reasoning for banning wanting to ban Moltres in the first place was extremely poor (go back and look at the log) and it would be extremely easy to make a counter arguement. I posted like twice in the suspect thread and then realized this is getting nowhere due to all the disgusting posts/arguments being posted, tbh I really couldn't care if Moltres got banned because it literally changes nothing in the tier, Stall and Balance are still inferior to Offense and Offense didn't care about Moltres anyway. I never said the council would be 100% fool proof but having more people who know what they are doing involved in the voting process SHOULD reduce the amount of railroading onto the other members. I'm not saying that the council wouldn't get it wrong from time to time but having a bigger sample size will reduce it. This is no power grab idgaf who is running the tier I just want good and logical decisions to be made...
"12. omfuga ban (his teams have no fire resists)" I have a single team without a fire resist, and it manages to deal with fires easily anyway. I don't want moltres banned "just because my teams have no fire resists". I have one team without a fire resist, and I use slowking on a lot of my teams so I have no idea what you're talking about. Write a rap about me and maybe that'll make u feel better fren :]
I agree that Durant is a really powerful threat... but is it really that defining in the LU metagame that it should be banned? People seem to take a ban more and more lightly and this is not criticism towards previous bans or people or whatever. It's just something I noticed. If Durant is deemed broken in a suspect then I won't argue, but I don't see enough reason to suspect it. How many pokes can safely switch in on CB Escavalier? How many pokes like switching in on banded Entei? What can tank a hit from +2 Omastar? I could go on, but really Durant is not breaking any decent defensive nor offensive team with ease. No way to boost its speed, not quite enough power to sweep without a turn of setup and not the best coverage moves kinda limit its sweeping potential a lot. The point of a ban imo should be to significantly improve the tier, and I don't see how removing just another threat like Durant accomplishes that. If you disagree with this please reply, I would love to hear other opinions on this.
For your comparisons: For Escavalier, there are a decent number of things that can switch in (depending on the move.), (Hey, one of the things that could switch in on any move and threaten out was Moltres!), but Escav is just so slow, it's bulk is OK, but yea, the inability to outspeed basically anything makes it not so good. Entei is almost a one-trick pony, it's sole purpose is to threaten with Flare Blitz, which means it takes a huge amount of recoil, and then, late game click Espeed, there is nothing else it can really do successfully, it's speed isn't great and it's bulk is average, as well as a weakness to rocks that doesn't help with the aforementioned recoil. For Omastar, it's weak to mach punch, and, after smashing, unless you're using White Herb, which leaves you prone to be OHKO'd at -1 def. It is neutral or weak to all forms of priority excluding fake out, whilst Durant is neutral or resistant to all forms that and even at +2 Omastar is outsped by a few scarfers, like Scarf Rotom-A, whether you're timid or modest, it's outspeeding and killing you. The same goes for Krookodile, two pretty common Pokemon. Omastar also has no coverage for a few Pokemon, like Uxie, that can cripple with Twave or even do nice damage with Psychic vs a -1 Spdef Omastar. Durant hits a very nice speed tier, whilst also hitting incredibly hard, it's only faults are the inaccuracy of Hustle and it's abyssmal Special Defence (its Physical isn't great either, but it's usable.) I've got to agree with a Durant suspect, Durant has three very threatening and usable sets, being Hone Claws (of some item and movepool variant.), Scarf and Band. These all perform slightly different things, Meh, probably not well written but I think it'll do for now.
I wasn't saying all players who opposed Moltres ban didn't care about LU, or that they were RU players. That'd be silly of me to say. I was just expressing my frustration that a few people were coming here and trying to claim they represented the LU community when they didn't, nor did they actually give a shit about the tier beyond getting their own way. The tier leaders saw quite a lot of coherent points on both sides. Then they decided on a ban. That some people will disagree with that is inevitable. Doesn't mean they didn't do their job. And yeah y'all, feel free to complain to higher-ups about tier leaders. Personally I think they've done and continue to do a good job, as a former leader myself, and will gladly back them up to higher-ups.
I feel bad about this reaction as it definitely was not what I wanted from it. To attempt to fix this for the future I have me a response sheet on how I can do my job better, so you can give me feed back on anything pretty much. The form is anonymous, so you can say whatever you want without risk of being infracted. Try to keep it as constructive criticism however, I do have feelings too. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jcNnUFdzCHTqfMfQzWC0iZYZkCnQu1MamaAyB3nj5hg/viewform Other Tier Leaders: Ask me for access to the results if you want them. EDIT: Just to clarify, this doc does not mean that we fucked up. It's just a way for me to improve as a tier leader, by listening to responses without my bias. People seem to misunderstand that this is here to help everyone be more happy.
Man, this argument is getting funnier by the post... For those of you thinking it was completely biased, unanimous, and unfair: Taking this to account, Xdevo and The Real Elmo voted ban for their given reasons. So, even if Tyki voted no-ban for his own reasons, it would be banned by majority anyway. Also, the fact that he changed his mind is proof that he does listen. You guys are seriously taking this to the extreme! I'm with Aurist and Tyki on the fact that nothing has been done wrong as of now and you guys really have to stop this argument because, let's face it, it is going nowhere. Now can we get back to more important matters, like Pokemon?
If you actually read the posts this discussion isn't about trying to reverse the vote on ban. It's about changing the way bans are carried out. Now please, go through and actually read the posts before posting something that doesn't contribute anything to this conversation. :]
Since both leaders said Yes, his vote didn't matter. I know Tyki's current stance on Moltres so I'm not just saying this, and since the Moltres suspect has 131 posts, one of the largest suspects in the lower tiers we've had in a while. It's not easy for Tyki to be able to come to an exact opinion on it. He was torn, I'm sure he would've chosen his point if he had to, but it was unnecessary since the regardless result would end up with Moltres being banned. You had some of (if not) the best posts in the Moltres thread, and you probably felt strongly about this specific suspect, but flaming the current tier leaders is no way to respond to something not going your way. This goes to everybody tbh, flaming a tier leader or mentioning how "bad" the system is will not change things. They looked at both sides of the argument, I know that for a fact. A lot of them didn't make up their mind until a few days before they talked, I asked them every week what they thought about Moltres and they said they weren't sure. You guys are acting like little kids, I know people want the "right" and "logical" decision to be made, and nobody wants that more than I do, but I think that calling a group of people bad isn't the right way to get the logical decision to be made. As a current Tier Leader, I don't believe they should get this type of bullying. And the fact that someone literally compared a Pokemon Suspect to the current Human Catastrophe that's going on right now in Syria is beyond me.
I specifically posted with the intent of not flaming the tier leaders. My posts were certainly frank, but they were not abusive, inflammatory or aggressive at all. Rational questioning of the accepted standard should not be discouraged just because there are negative reactions towards the leaders of the tier. You'll notice that my posts did not discuss "how bad the system is," did not decry the current leadership as incompetent and certainly did not flame anyone on either side. Please take my posts at face value. I agree with you Cased that they should not be subject to abuse and my posts reflect that in rationally raising flaws with the system rather than "claiming the leader is a shitstain scum on this planet" because the latter are not my beliefs. My posts were worded carefully in an attempt to properly convey that message.
Christ, I leave my post as Overlord of the lower tiers and everyone goes crazy. I would also like to say on that tally of Moltres and Druddigon that one of you posted, that I actually don't think Druddigon is broken at all. Moltres has been decided, but I think its need for a spinner, shaky accuracy and just good speed make it completely manageable, which is the extremely short version of my argument for it. To everyone complaining about the Moltres ban: I've had to ban certain pokemon that I didn't think were broken in my time as leader, and the same can be said for xdevo as well. Voting systems in OU and even UU work because of the fact that there's enough people participating in the little rat race that opinions..."balance out." Many people voting have completely varied opinions because the OU community is so vast given the nature of the tier. LU and NU? Not so much, by any means. Far fewer people play these tiers, and because of this cliques tend to form, and failing that a lot of times what happens is a few people get to know eachother and start posting more on the forum. Which is why voting here doesn't work. Smaller groups of people playing anything means a more centralized and biased opinion. Sure, it may be "better" in the sense that the public(which is only about 12 people anyway) get a more direct way to voice their opinions, but it leads to larger groups or clans being able to shape the tier exactly the way they want. You could say 3 leaders can do the exact same thing, but if that were to happen Oak, BR or hell myself would definitely do something about it. Everyone in some kind of position pays more attention then you guys may think. Plus, RU has a bigger player base simply because it's smogon, so a council/voting system works better there. People will always flock there. I do sometimes even if I never post. Would say more but on limited time, I'll add later if I need to.
In no ways of offense or anything, but your post kind of did. :\ Took the words right out of my mouth, especially the italicized. I vote we end this argument, just accept the ban, have some sushi, and call it a day. Sound like a plan?
I disagree but you're entitled to think so. The first paragraph expressed my dissatisfaction with the way the result of the Moltres suspect came about and contained a request for further action. The second paragraph commented on the numbers of people saying "LEAVE THE TIER LEADERS ALONE" as a response to the complaints about them, simply stating that it is valid to question leadership given cause. The third paragraph expressed my dissatisfaction with the decision of a tier leader to abstain. As I said, my words were certainly frank but I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that I flamed them - nor was it my intent to do so.
I just want to clarify that I never meant anything bad towards the tier leaders, I know that they are capable of doing their jobs and I never had a problem with the way it has been done in the past. This time however the reasoning for wanting to ban Moltres in the log was extremely poor such as "NB has some good points but I want stall to have a chance" and if the same poor reasoning was used in favor of Moltres I would still be as annoyed, it honestly just made it look like you guys didn't know what you were doing at all, when we both know you do know what you're doing. Next time just post a paragraph or something on why your reasons for wanting to ban/not ban something.
I think people believed you were flaming the Tier Leaders purely from you just being frank, I know you were being straight forward, which certainly isn't bad, but being blunt always looks harsher than what you actually mean. Thanks for the clarification though. This is something the Tier Leaders should start doing imo, I'll be doing this with Dusclops. The others are allowed to do whatever they want, but a paragraph shows the people who took time out of their day to post in the suspect that the leaders did take both arguments into consideration. It'll probably avoid situations like this, although people shouldn't attempt responding to said paragraph because doing so won't change anything. (Glad everything is alright now)
Next time just post a paragraph or something on why your reasons for wanting to ban/not ban something.[/QUOTE] Can't quote properly on the phone and can't g online on the laptop so yeah. This is exactly what I used to do, and every leader should definitely do the same. Not all three, just one of them make a (shortif possible) paragraph of the reasons for the ban.
I've talked about this with Elmo (and I am sure Devo will agree), and we will do this for every suspect starting now.