ik that u probs dont mean do this but
u r hurting ubers
regardless of whether the outcome that u propose turns out healthier for the meta i rly think that that sort of superior and dismissive attitude is rly unproductive
just bc ur a mod doesnt mean ur opinion ipso facto carries more weight. i rly honestly think that the way u structured ur response raises red flags to say a hypothetical unbiased third party mediating this discussion bc u v clearly ballerina around the obligation of backing ur statements up w any semblance of proof
not sure if i speak for all pro unban ppl here but the gist of my post effectively has less to do with us as a community trying to figure out thru whatll inevitably culminate in circular arguments abt whether an unban or ban is warranted bc of reasons x y and z etc, the pt i attempted to convey is that the nature and v spirit of ubers is to establish to a greater extent than less a laissez faire environment whereby there exists a relatively higher degree of tolerance for supposedly uncomp strats compared to other tiers bar ag for the meta to ultimately reach an equilibrium w a more unique gradient
imo ubers is a tier in which the priority lies in the playerbase to be given maximum liberty in access to all the tools that the game provides in order to establish said equilibrium whilst maintaining a tolerable degree of competitiveness. if an element within the game renders this unfavorable then the playerbase along w the auth will eliminate this factor to commence a new search for this equilibrium; fail again and the community will rinse and repeat until a derivative is formed upon which everyone can reasonably agree
i guess what i rly wanna say is that its great that u think that u "see at least two Pokemon consistently running Swagger in SM assuming this is unbaned, and the most reasonable conclusion for these cases is that it's not good for comp edge" but actually no one cares because u r indeed clueless as to what the end product of a swag inclusive ubers wud look like as it currently stands. and neither do we, the pro unban side. and therein lies the heart of the matter: not only does the burden of proof lay upon those in favor of any ban, it is but the complete and utter duty of auth figures like u to enact meaningful reform where requisite to maintain the integrity of this tier.
thus i believe that the only reasonable solution to precipitate from this issue that dice has so kindly raised is to quick-unban the swagger clause and then subsequently reinstate a suspect test in proposition of said clause if so neceesary
ps dam u know ur post is quality when konz- expurement drops a like lolz
Your post spends its time making baseless personal jabs rather than addressing any thesis I present, and I'd argue if anything, it's those kind of mentalities that are "hurting ubers" - along with people in chat who say misogynistic things, joke about child pornography, or viciously insult other users.
The argument I present basically breaks down to:
- Legality of Swagger introduces RNG into the tier.
- Legality of Swagger marginally increases the pool of viable game elements.
- Of the legitimate uses introduced, they are still largely rooted in RNG.
Issue: Is introducing more RNG, risking comp edge, worth preserving the few legitimate uses of Swagger?
My conclusion was that it's not, and I understand several users' pro-unban viewpoint as being that it is worth it, or should just be a cost associated with the tier and something we just deal with.
This weighting of maximizing options vs. increasing comp edge is the heart of tiering policy, not just for Ubers, but for all competitive tiers. It's the driving force behind most tiering decisions, and going too far one way or the other on the scale causes problems.
The argument that it should be unbanned now, and can always be re-banned later if it becomes a problem, isn't necessarily the best solution. In theory this is fine, but the reality is that people don't always agree, and that it takes forever for anything to get done in regards to tiering policy with this tier - take the last ban, BP, as an example. It's possible the tier ends up viewing Swagger as a minor thing in the background that nobody is going to go to the trouble of re-banning. Or, let's say we do end up deciding that it should be re-banned, but now it gets bogged up in bureaucracy so people are stuck with the problem until things get fixed.
We have enough information right now to make an informed decision, and claiming that nobody has even the smallest idea what a meta with Swagger is absurd. This isn't speculation about a major gameplay element that has never been in comp play, like say an amazing new Pokemon. This is a move that has been around for more than fifteen years, that we know all the mechanics behind, which has no depth to it, that was legal in recent history, and which it's very obvious as to what of the few users will have any consistency. Dismissing all other arguments on the grounds that we don't know what Swagger holds is a poor excuse.
Consistency is also something to keep in mind with tiering policy. Mega Rayquaza wasn't given a SM unban, or even some kind of discussion / test, yet it's a game element with far more depth to it and uncertainty in development when compared to Swagger. The reason it wasn't unbanned was because there is cost associated with reintroducing such an element, and we have some foresight of what that game element is already like. Therefore, it was decided that there was no need to unban Mega Ray for SM. Why should Swagger get special treatment? We don't need to reintroduce OHKO moves into Ubers to understand that they lower comp edge. We know what Swagger holds, and I'm of the opinion that it holds more bad than good.