Supermajorities are only meant to be used when there are 2 options to pick from, that's why we use runoff in things like senatorial elections where there are many choices and only a plurality is expected. This forces people who want some sort of action, but would only want to ban one of volc or cloy, to vote ban on both, otherwise they risk splitting the vote and getting nothing. I urge Old Gen Council to reconsider this voting format, or to split up the suspect into action/no action and hold a vote on what to ban after SPL.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Rejected RE: Cloyster & Volcarona in BW OU [ Survey Post # 29 ]
- Thread starter Finchinator
- Start date
Cloyster and Volcarona remain legal: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/bw-ou-volcarona-and-cloyster.3734004/page-2#post-9927265
Personally happy Volc remains, was on the fence about Cloy myself. Close vote and some contention over the format, so happy to keep this discussion thread open for people to share their thoughts.
We will not do anything more prior to SPL, but future implications are always possible (not saying on this specifically or other things, but no point in closing a thread when there are people who care about the tier with thoughts on the matter). I do think singular Pokemon suspects are the best moving forward (if we need action) as it takes any conditional voting formats or drama over what should be done entirely out of the equation, but that is another topic for another thread altogether.
Personally happy Volc remains, was on the fence about Cloy myself. Close vote and some contention over the format, so happy to keep this discussion thread open for people to share their thoughts.
We will not do anything more prior to SPL, but future implications are always possible (not saying on this specifically or other things, but no point in closing a thread when there are people who care about the tier with thoughts on the matter). I do think singular Pokemon suspects are the best moving forward (if we need action) as it takes any conditional voting formats or drama over what should be done entirely out of the equation, but that is another topic for another thread altogether.
Before I get into the negative stuff here I would like to point out there are some great things to celebrate here - a BW OU survey for both the qualified playerbase and wider community, a ladder suspect, and a quick turnaround vote before the beginning of SPL have all been excellent and I'd like to thank the council for these aspects of the process. There are many positives to take here.
That said it does feel like the most important part of the process, the format of the vote itself, was some kind of monkey-paw version that I don't think benefitted anyone.
Volcarona and Cloyster are linked Pokemon that are played on the same archetype - whilst not always used together, the fact that "VolcCloy" has even been coined as a phrase should indicate that these are Pokemon that are tied, as much as Alakazam+Reuniclus or Thundurus-T+Politoed.
Many people view VolcCloy as an issue and had an intention to ban one, but few are pro-ban on both, which feels like needlessly hitting the same archetype with a double nerf. Indeed, this aim to avoid a double ban felt shared by members of council who indicated their preference 2 weeks ago, to utilising a voting system that finds a preference between single ban of Volcarona or Cloyster. For myself and many others, it felt like these discussions from members of council on discord along with the precedent of last year's two Volcarona + Cloyster votes, suggested a high likelihood that Volcarona and Cloyster would be voted on with a ranked preference system, where users had the ranked choice between do not ban, ban volc, ban cloy, and ban both. This would have allowed pro-ban to rank individual Volcarona and Cloyster bans above a double ban, which basically all sides wanted to avoid. Speaking to many of the pro-ban users it is clear that a common order preference was the follows:
ban one
ban the other
ban both
ban neither
Instead, the format of the vote we were given plays Volcarona and Cloyster off against eachother with none of the additional nuance, benefitting the status quo on top of the required 60% supermajority. A player who is incredibly passionate on Volcarona will vote ban on it, but the vote lacks enough nuance for someone to specify that they may only favour a Cloy ban if Volcarona does not go. For two Pokemon that are commonly run as partners and are largely the face of a similar issue, running the vote in this way seems shortsighted - it is very likely that people view both of the individual ban options as positive whilst wanting to avoid doing both simultaneously, but the vote does not allow that point of view.
The result is that the only way for either proban option to realistically get a majority is for people to vote for something they do not want - the most common vote, with 13/30 or 43%, was double ban on Volcarona and Cloyster, which anyone active in the community can tell you is not representative of people's true opinions. People did this as it gave them the best odds of avoiding their worst case scenario, a no ban situation, even if double ban is their second worst case scenario.
Strikingly, only 6 players voted for a Volcarona only (3, 10%) or Cloyster only (3, 10%) ban, of which three have now publicly indicated that they would have voted double ban if they had realised that they had just voted against their own interest. The majority of the pro-ban side would have taken either/or Volc and Cloyster ahead of double and ahead of no ban, but were unable to vote for this.
The sad thing is that this doesn't even help out the anti-ban players anyway. Double ban got far far far closer to getting pushed through here than it ever could have with a ranked system, and players worried about losing Volc or Cloy due to strengthening Reuniclus etc surely should have been terrified at the proposition of both leaving. Nobody truly benefited from voting on two linked Pokemon as if they were fully distinct.
I think we need to learn something from this process. Firstly, the way that OGC defines its "consistent" set of tiering principles needs to be more public. Its completely reasonable for players to have assumed that a ranked choice vote would have been used after the last two times we were allowed to vote on Volc and Cloy, a ranked choice vote that was forced upon by OGC themselves when I had originally intended to get people's thoughts on Gems only. The counterargument is that Gems in the last vote made a material difference to the format needed, which 1) I think is serious mental gymnastics and 2) if this was all public it would have encouraged many to rally behind including Gems in the vote today so we could have used a ranked choice system. This is not the first "consistency" OGC decision that feels arbitrary; DPP being allowed complex bans for baton pass but not for Snow Cloak, despite Snow Cloak already have a complex ban; ADV not having true agency over their own baton pass ruling either. There are messy precedents everywhere and when some of these old, late-stage metagames are built on inconsistent precedent it is jarring to enforce suboptimal tiering practices in the name of surface-level consistency. The vote this week is the worst form it could have taken.
If we really, truly, cannot have a ranked vote on this next time for whatever reason, then we simply cannot simultaneously suspect 2 closely related Pokemon like this again. I asked Finchinator whether we would ever tier like this for Reuniclus + Alakazam and the answer was "I would not act on either pokemon personally [but] i would lobby to vote on reuni or zam and not together at all" - we can all clearly see that this is a flawed tiering approach if you swap Volcarona Cloyster with any other common pair, so it is clear this vote should just never have been held in this way. I understand that the community pushed for a vote, but we did so believing ranked choice was a standout format to use, which council members agreed with on discord recently.
Many are left with a bitter taste in their mouths. Double ban, an approach that very few want, came far too close to winning here. Meanwhile, as some of the single ban voters start putting their hands up to admit they actually would have taken either ban but didn't realise the implications of their vote, its also becoming clearer that the 50-50 outcome for both Volcarona and Cloyster may be skewed slightly more towards pro-ban than the raw numbers suggest. I am not advocating any re-test now, but I hope when we revisit this issue again post-SPL that we are far more careful with the format and ideally take a solution rooted in pragmatism rather over supposed consistency.
That said it does feel like the most important part of the process, the format of the vote itself, was some kind of monkey-paw version that I don't think benefitted anyone.
Volcarona and Cloyster are linked Pokemon that are played on the same archetype - whilst not always used together, the fact that "VolcCloy" has even been coined as a phrase should indicate that these are Pokemon that are tied, as much as Alakazam+Reuniclus or Thundurus-T+Politoed.
Many people view VolcCloy as an issue and had an intention to ban one, but few are pro-ban on both, which feels like needlessly hitting the same archetype with a double nerf. Indeed, this aim to avoid a double ban felt shared by members of council who indicated their preference 2 weeks ago, to utilising a voting system that finds a preference between single ban of Volcarona or Cloyster. For myself and many others, it felt like these discussions from members of council on discord along with the precedent of last year's two Volcarona + Cloyster votes, suggested a high likelihood that Volcarona and Cloyster would be voted on with a ranked preference system, where users had the ranked choice between do not ban, ban volc, ban cloy, and ban both. This would have allowed pro-ban to rank individual Volcarona and Cloyster bans above a double ban, which basically all sides wanted to avoid. Speaking to many of the pro-ban users it is clear that a common order preference was the follows:
ban one
ban the other
ban both
ban neither
Instead, the format of the vote we were given plays Volcarona and Cloyster off against eachother with none of the additional nuance, benefitting the status quo on top of the required 60% supermajority. A player who is incredibly passionate on Volcarona will vote ban on it, but the vote lacks enough nuance for someone to specify that they may only favour a Cloy ban if Volcarona does not go. For two Pokemon that are commonly run as partners and are largely the face of a similar issue, running the vote in this way seems shortsighted - it is very likely that people view both of the individual ban options as positive whilst wanting to avoid doing both simultaneously, but the vote does not allow that point of view.
The result is that the only way for either proban option to realistically get a majority is for people to vote for something they do not want - the most common vote, with 13/30 or 43%, was double ban on Volcarona and Cloyster, which anyone active in the community can tell you is not representative of people's true opinions. People did this as it gave them the best odds of avoiding their worst case scenario, a no ban situation, even if double ban is their second worst case scenario.
Strikingly, only 6 players voted for a Volcarona only (3, 10%) or Cloyster only (3, 10%) ban, of which three have now publicly indicated that they would have voted double ban if they had realised that they had just voted against their own interest. The majority of the pro-ban side would have taken either/or Volc and Cloyster ahead of double and ahead of no ban, but were unable to vote for this.
The sad thing is that this doesn't even help out the anti-ban players anyway. Double ban got far far far closer to getting pushed through here than it ever could have with a ranked system, and players worried about losing Volc or Cloy due to strengthening Reuniclus etc surely should have been terrified at the proposition of both leaving. Nobody truly benefited from voting on two linked Pokemon as if they were fully distinct.
I think we need to learn something from this process. Firstly, the way that OGC defines its "consistent" set of tiering principles needs to be more public. Its completely reasonable for players to have assumed that a ranked choice vote would have been used after the last two times we were allowed to vote on Volc and Cloy, a ranked choice vote that was forced upon by OGC themselves when I had originally intended to get people's thoughts on Gems only. The counterargument is that Gems in the last vote made a material difference to the format needed, which 1) I think is serious mental gymnastics and 2) if this was all public it would have encouraged many to rally behind including Gems in the vote today so we could have used a ranked choice system. This is not the first "consistency" OGC decision that feels arbitrary; DPP being allowed complex bans for baton pass but not for Snow Cloak, despite Snow Cloak already have a complex ban; ADV not having true agency over their own baton pass ruling either. There are messy precedents everywhere and when some of these old, late-stage metagames are built on inconsistent precedent it is jarring to enforce suboptimal tiering practices in the name of surface-level consistency. The vote this week is the worst form it could have taken.
If we really, truly, cannot have a ranked vote on this next time for whatever reason, then we simply cannot simultaneously suspect 2 closely related Pokemon like this again. I asked Finchinator whether we would ever tier like this for Reuniclus + Alakazam and the answer was "I would not act on either pokemon personally [but] i would lobby to vote on reuni or zam and not together at all" - we can all clearly see that this is a flawed tiering approach if you swap Volcarona Cloyster with any other common pair, so it is clear this vote should just never have been held in this way. I understand that the community pushed for a vote, but we did so believing ranked choice was a standout format to use, which council members agreed with on discord recently.
Many are left with a bitter taste in their mouths. Double ban, an approach that very few want, came far too close to winning here. Meanwhile, as some of the single ban voters start putting their hands up to admit they actually would have taken either ban but didn't realise the implications of their vote, its also becoming clearer that the 50-50 outcome for both Volcarona and Cloyster may be skewed slightly more towards pro-ban than the raw numbers suggest. I am not advocating any re-test now, but I hope when we revisit this issue again post-SPL that we are far more careful with the format and ideally take a solution rooted in pragmatism rather over supposed consistency.
Last edited:
Just to be clear this format was not "forced" or anything of that nature, it was just chosen by the BW council without much discussion because its basically just the existing default.
There are definitely fair points here about issues with the format, but I don't think having more runoff votes is really the ideal solution either. I agree they might make more sense than a straight ban/no ban when suspecting multiple pokemon that are intertwined, but they come with their own set of issues.
1. You don't actually need a supermajority to make a change to the metagame which kind of blows because it really should be an overwhelming opinion to make changes to old gens especially (although even cg ou uses supermajorities).
2. You can easily end up with a winner that most people didn't actually want. Just to demonstrate the kind of insane volatility with runoffs, the initial Gems/Volc/Cloy vote was literally 1 vote away from ending up with Volcarona and Cloyster banned or just Volcarona banned instead of Gems banned. SoulWind was the last vote and voted Ban Nothing > Ban Volcarona > Ban Cloyster > Ban Volcarona and Cloyster > Ban Gems. Obviously he preferred literally any result to banning Gems, but by voting in this particular order he actually acted against his own self-interest. If he had ranked Ban Volcarona first, that would have won. If he had ranked Ban Volcarona and Cloyster first, that would have won. He literally managed to get his least favored outcome to win just because of the ordering of the other options.
This is all to say I don't love instant runoffs as a format and would only like to use them if there are literally no other alternatives for the issue at hand. I think the real answer here is really just making sure that we only suspect one thing at a time. It avoids any kind of reason for somebody to vote anything other than what they actually believe, and ensures a supermajority of people actually want whatever change to happen. Obviously cases come up like this Volc/Cloy survey where people kind of equally wanted both, but I think it should just be the council's prerogative at that point to pick one rather than using an unideal voting format.
There are definitely fair points here about issues with the format, but I don't think having more runoff votes is really the ideal solution either. I agree they might make more sense than a straight ban/no ban when suspecting multiple pokemon that are intertwined, but they come with their own set of issues.
1. You don't actually need a supermajority to make a change to the metagame which kind of blows because it really should be an overwhelming opinion to make changes to old gens especially (although even cg ou uses supermajorities).
2. You can easily end up with a winner that most people didn't actually want. Just to demonstrate the kind of insane volatility with runoffs, the initial Gems/Volc/Cloy vote was literally 1 vote away from ending up with Volcarona and Cloyster banned or just Volcarona banned instead of Gems banned. SoulWind was the last vote and voted Ban Nothing > Ban Volcarona > Ban Cloyster > Ban Volcarona and Cloyster > Ban Gems. Obviously he preferred literally any result to banning Gems, but by voting in this particular order he actually acted against his own self-interest. If he had ranked Ban Volcarona first, that would have won. If he had ranked Ban Volcarona and Cloyster first, that would have won. He literally managed to get his least favored outcome to win just because of the ordering of the other options.
This is all to say I don't love instant runoffs as a format and would only like to use them if there are literally no other alternatives for the issue at hand. I think the real answer here is really just making sure that we only suspect one thing at a time. It avoids any kind of reason for somebody to vote anything other than what they actually believe, and ensures a supermajority of people actually want whatever change to happen. Obviously cases come up like this Volc/Cloy survey where people kind of equally wanted both, but I think it should just be the council's prerogative at that point to pick one rather than using an unideal voting format.