[OU Discussion] Snorlax [Test banned]

[Hotarubi]

10 minutes ago, Draekyn said:

What happens when a great portion of the community is unable to deal with snorlax because they can't be bothered to deviate from the defensive core they stole from a replay?

 

Rather than trying to nullify this and calling it a popularity contest, well consider the following.

The suggestion was to involved experienced competitive players.

Not noobs.

To go further.

I think all experienced players are entitled to they opinions.

Cookie cutters aren't every single player of competitive.

Sorry you can't nullify this arguments vaildity by making some what if statement.

Here's one right back at you.

What if a council was formed and then to manipulate the decision of the council those in power invited individuals they knew the opinions and stances of already?

 

What if this MMO loses money, popularity and users because it fails to suit the needs of the vast majority of competitive players and chooses to pamper the ones who have "competitive skills." or those lucky enough to win events.

Competitive knowledge should not rely on running trapinch or tier building around snorlax.

I miss the 2015 meta so badly, I would love to see chansey in place of snorlax every other game.....

Even with shed hull and no dugtrio.

 

Lets talk about this.

IF a decision is made on fair grounds and snorlax is or isn't banned, because I know its not getting a "complex ban" for any reason what so ever.

I think everyone would be able to stop uguuing about it either way.

So long as that decision was made on fair grounds.

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Hotarubi

[Mike]

So I personally think the TC did a great job not banning Snorlax, sure it's strong but it isn't unbreakable. Milotic with haze can just win from any snorlax set. It can out stall it in PP. If bodyslam paralyzes it will even do better against it. Probably why you see so many Milotics. Anyway it's not like Snorlax is some inpenetrable wall. Because even some specs users can 2HKO it after 2-3 layer of spikes. For example alakazam. On top of that I feel as if you don't prepare for Snorlax you don't really play this tier right. Perhaps Snorlax might be a little bit centralizing. But teams can be build to deal with it. It's not like a Tyranitar/Salamence/Dragonite who just sets up DD and can sweep teams while still being a great mixed attackers. Most OU teams prepare for scary stuff like Snorlax, Metagross, Flygon etc. Snorlax himself has capitalized a bit over the months aswell. From most running curse to people running it with fireblast to deal with skarmory. And then trick clops was used alot against it and substitute set was made. In my opinion it is a strong pokemon. But later in your game once you have seen most of his/her team I am sure you can predict a double switch with Snorlax and scare it out again. That is actually one of the reasons why I like it. If you fuck up it's your own fault. Oh and Trapinch is pretty kek for it aswell.

 

Anyway my conclusion, instead of Snorlax being too centralizing I just think it's an iconic OU pokemon. With Snorlax gone I am afraid Chansey will be everywhere and people will complain about that thing even more than they are now. OU at the moment isn't half as bad. 

[Bearminator]

14 minutes ago, Hotarubi said:

I think all experienced players are entitled to they opinions.

You know, I think they had chance to say their opinions in this thread. 

[Murcielago]

GJ Tier Council, the right decision was made!

[Hotarubi]

1 hour ago, Bearminator said:

You know, I think they had chance to say their opinions in this thread. 

Those opinions weren't validated as the council was decided after opinions had already been voiced by those individuals picked to be on said council.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't choosing people who will make the difference in number of votes on one side matter?

If you already know the stance they have then you invited them to the council causing inbalance is that fair?

I think not.

I'm incredibly unhappy with this.

I feel that snorlax is overly centralizing, that it falls under the defensive ban reasoning as it stops anything with special sweeping capacity then reinforces itself with 

bodyslam which has stab and 30% para , or curse which turns the pokemon not only from a spdef wall but into a physical sweeper.

It's limiting team building by forcing players to bring a counter to it in which scenario bringing any for sure counter to it leaves you open to another setup pokemon once snorlax is dispatched.

I see this as unsporting and once again. I know I am not alone in this. I see no reason to continue to repeat this as It's common knowledge, this decision was bias.

@TheChampionMike I'd rather deal with a chansey any day of the week for a year straight every day even.

Chansey is nowhere near the problem that snorlax is.

In regards to your mention of trapinch, if trapinch dispaches snorlax the player is forces to swap giving the opponent the ability to setup a pokemon this is also very unsporting. Having to use a pokemon like trapinch to kill snorlax specifically is centralizing which is unhealthy for the OU meta. Other pokemon counter chansey just fine and also umbreon, for example VENU however venu generally doesn't do very much against snorlax unless you've built some gimmick specifically to counter snorlax.

Snorlax gives an unfair advantage in most situations.

The is the OU tier not the Snorlax Tier.

Maybe you will understand once this becomes a stale thing for you also, I got tired of this pokemon in 2014.

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Hotarubi

[Kizhaz]

24 minutes ago, Hotarubi said:

Those opinions weren't validated as the council was decided after opinions had already been voiced by those individuals picked to be on said council.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't choosing people who will make the difference in number of votes on one side matter?

If you already know the stance they have then you invited them to the council causing inbalance is that fair?

I think not.

I'm incredibly unhappy with this.

I feel that snorlax is overly centralizing, that it falls under the defensive ban reasoning as it stops anything with special sweeping capacity then reinforces itself with 

bodyslam which has stab and 30% para , or curse which turns the pokemon not only from a spdef wall but into a physical sweeper.

It's limiting team building by forcing players to bring a counter to it in which scenario bringing any for sure counter to it leaves you open to another setup pokemon once snorlax is dispatched.

I see this as unsporting and once again. I know I am not alone in this. I see no reason to continue to repeat this as It's common knowledge, this decision was bias.

@TheChampionMike I'd rather deal with a chansey any day of the week for a year straight every day even.

Chansey is nowhere near the problem that snorlax is.

In regards to your mention of trapinch, if trapinch dispaches snorlax the player is forces to swap giving the opponent the ability to setup a pokemon this is also very unsporting. Having to use a pokemon like trapinch to kill snorlax specifically is centralizing which is unhealthy for the OU meta. Other pokemon counter chansey just fine and also umbreon, for example VENU however venu generally doesn't do very much against snorlax unless you've built some gimmick specifically to counter snorlax.

Snorlax gives an unfair advantage in most situations.

The is the OU tier not the Snorlax Tier.

Maybe you will understand once this becomes a stale thing for you also, I got tired of this pokemon in 2014.

 

I don't think the new tier councel members were involved in this decision, well other than as players posting in this thread. If they were involved however I don't think it matters all to much, I'm sure Coolio and Riga weren't chosen to join TC because of their stance on Snorlax. They were chosen based on their knowledge of the comp scene and skills as players (well coolio was, riga is bad) so I don't understand how you can think of this decision as "bias"

 

Edit:Actually I think i misinterpreted your comment. However If you meant all of the TC as a whole, not just the newbies I think my point still stands. Yes they will probably have their own oppinions but as TC members they still have to listen and respond with the community providing evidencs of pros or cons. When the TC was made however long ago it was because decisions wern't being made/bad decisions were being made by the community, so we got a bunch of people who know the comp scene to be the final check if something is banworthy or not

Edited October 4, 2016 by Kizhaz
Because

[Draekyn]

On 04/10/2016 at 11:06 AM, Hotarubi said:

The suggestion was to involved experienced competitive players.

Not noobs.

100% certain that I would be amused at where you would draw the line between an experienced and an inexperienced competitive player

 

On 04/10/2016 at 11:06 AM, Hotarubi said:

Here's one right back at you.

What if a council was formed and then to manipulate the decision of the council those in power invited individuals they knew the opinions and stances of already?

Will you stop with that tinfoil hat conspiracy theory? You are ridiculous

[Bilburt]

2 hours ago, Draekyn said:

What happens when a great portion of the community is unable to deal with snorlax because they can't be bothered to deviate from the defensive core they stole from a replay?

 

You wouldnt bring up snorlax if there wasnt reason to ban it

also; the poll wouldnt be the final decision, just influencing the vote

the TC should have the final decision

and if you feel like people do not understand snorlax then it should be the task of Tier Council to make sure that everyone knows why it is being discussed and what reasons there are for a ban or not. I feel like that if the poll would have a vote in the final decision made then there wouldnt be any reason for anyone to complain.

[Gunthug]

1 hour ago, Hotarubi said:

Those opinions weren't validated as the council was decided after opinions had already been voiced by those individuals picked to be on said council.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't choosing people who will make the difference in number of votes on one side matter?

If you already know the stance they have then you invited them to the council causing inbalance is that fair?

I think not.

I'm incredibly unhappy with this.

I feel that snorlax is overly centralizing, that it falls under the defensive ban reasoning as it stops anything with special sweeping capacity then reinforces itself with 

bodyslam which has stab and 30% para , or curse which turns the pokemon not only from a spdef wall but into a physical sweeper.

It's limiting team building by forcing players to bring a counter to it in which scenario bringing any for sure counter to it leaves you open to another setup pokemon once snorlax is dispatched.

I see this as unsporting and once again. I know I am not alone in this. I see no reason to continue to repeat this as It's common knowledge, this decision was bias

 

 

Something to consider - if the two added council members had been vocally anti-snorlax, and the vote would have come out differently, you wouldn't be leading this anti-TC crusade right now. That's some pretty strong hypocrisy. It's pretty clear you're just upset that the ban didn't go the way you wanted it to. Get over it - I also think snorlax should be banned, but I'm not going to kick and scream and throw a fit because I didn't get my way. I respect those who disagree with me, especially amongst the council. I suggest you try that "respect" thing out

[Spaintakula]

13 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

 throw a fit

dude, would've been so cool if you said throw a tantrum :/

[OrangeManiac]

I mean, if you call someone out for bias while not having any proof of said bias you have to be pretty biased yourself.

[Draekyn]

On 04/10/2016 at 3:02 PM, OrangeManiac said:

I mean, if you call someone out for bias while not having any proof of said bias you have to be pretty biased yourself.

Biasception

[Hotarubi]

1 minute ago, OrangeManiac said:

I mean, if you call someone out for bias while not having any proof of said bias you have to be pretty biased yourself.

I'm pretty sure the proof is clear as day here.

The decision was bias.

I'm not being unfair here. I requested a poll did i not?

However it was declined straight away with all sorts of excuses because nobody wants the truth to be told.

[OrangeManiac]

16 minutes ago, Hotarubi said:

I'm pretty sure the proof is clear as day here.

The decision was bias.

I'm not being unfair here. I requested a poll did i not?

However it was declined straight away with all sorts of excuses because nobody wants the truth to be told.

Just because tiering doesn't work by simple democracy doesn't mean the decisions made from it are biased. No matter how much I would criticize the council I wouldn't question a minute that each of these guys there are trying to make the decisions they find objectively the best. Not because I know almost all of them but because that's my default position to take unless they somehow prove me otherwise.

 

Calling them biased implies that they somehow drive their own benefit with the decision they're doing. What comes to Snorlax this would be fairly ironic considering it's a noob friendly Pokemon and they are fairly experienced players so that essentially would hurt themselves with that. Which means it's the most unbiased decision as you can get from this perspective, I don't know if you have your own insights.

Edited October 4, 2016 by OrangeManiac

[Hotarubi]

1 hour ago, Gunthug said:

Something to consider - if the two added council members had been vocally anti-snorlax, and the vote would have come out differently, you wouldn't be leading this anti-TC crusade right now. That's some pretty strong hypocrisy. It's pretty clear you're just upset that the ban didn't go the way you wanted it to. Get over it - I also think snorlax should be banned, but I'm not going to kick and scream and throw a fit because I didn't get my way. I respect those who disagree with me, especially amongst the council. I suggest you try that "respect" thing out

Sorry Gunthug but I don't agree with you.

I would not be upset but I would still want a poll created for the users who would complain about it being banned.

I find that 7 individuals are overall incapable of deciding what is "best" for everyone.

Atleast in this very controversial situation.

There are a lot more than 7 competitive players.

Whats more none of you are voted into that council you are all handpicked. 

"because you are people Tyrone knows and trusts."

To be honest. My points have been made.

None of you truly accomplished anything in your attempts to invalidate them.

The fact is this decision was made in a half ass unreasonable way.

It basically just suits the needs of players who like using the pokemon.

When it comes down to it though.

I wonder how it feels to know that the community is unhappy with the decision of your council

I'm not allowed to show you how unhappy they are because I'm forbidden to make a poll about it......

However I know that the statistic I collected of players for and against in my 3 possible outcomes which I had tried to include in that poll.

Most people want a complex ban or a total ban on snorlax.

Even some players using snorlax will consistently admit that it is unfair and unhealthy as it limits team building.

Multiple people jumping down my case does nothing.

Infact you can continue doing this all day and liking one another's posts like a high school click.

However my stance was and still is for the overall health of the community.

Not for the needs and wants of a select few individuals.

Thanks also for admitting that the decision of those council members pretty much decided the snorlax ban.

GG

Edited October 4, 2016 by Hotarubi

[KaynineXL]

5 minutes ago, Hotarubi said:

Sorry Gunthug but I don't agree with you.

I would not be upset but I would still want a poll created for the users who would complain about it being banned.

I find that 7 individuals are overall incapable of deciding what is "best" for everyone.

Atleast in this very controversial situation.

There are a lot more than 7 competitive players.

Whats more none of you are voted into that council you are all handpicked. 

"because you are people Tyrone knows and trusts."

To be honest. My points have been made.

None of you truly accomplished anything in your attempts to invalidate them.

The fact is this decision was made in a half ass unreasonable way.

It basically just suits the needs of players who like using the pokemon.

When it comes down to it though.

I wonder how it feels to know that the community is unhappy with the decision of your council

I'm not allowed to show you how unhappy they are because I'm forbidden to make a poll about it......

However I know that the statistic I collected of players for and against in my 3 possible outcomes which I had tried to include in that poll.

Most people want a complex ban or a total ban on snorlax.

Even some players using snorlax will consistently admit that it is unfair and unhealthy as it limits team building.

Multiple people jumping down my case does nothing.

Infact you can continue doing this all day and liking one another's posts like a high school click.

However my stance was and still is for the overall health of the community.

Not for the needs and wants of a select few individuals.

Thanks also for admitting that the decision of those council members pretty much decided the snorlax ban.

GG

How much value does a vote from an inexperienced player that doesn't know what's best for the meta hold compared to a player who has played for a long time, has a lot of experience, has shown they know how tiering works and overall just smarter than your average player.

 

This is one of those cases where you want quality over quantity. 

 

We're no liking each others comments because we're trying to all gang up on you... We're simply agreeing with each other and disagreeing with what you say. Stop always feeling sorry for yourself and making it looks like everyone is attacking you.

[Hotarubi]

5 hours ago, KaynineXL said:

How much value does a vote from an inexperienced player that doesn't know what's best for the meta hold compared to a player who has played for a long time, has a lot of experience, has shown they know how tiering works and overall just smarter than your average player.

 

This is one of those cases where you want quality over quantity. 

 

We're no liking each others comments because we're trying to all gang up on you... We're simply agreeing with each other and disagreeing with what you say. Stop always feeling sorry for yourself and making it looks like everyone is attacking you.

You are making assumptions about who I included into my own personal endeavor during this survey I conducted.

You cannot minimize the quality or knowledge of the individuals I questioned.

To shed light on it I was both fair and understanding of who's opinion is valuable and who really doesn't know enough about the OU tier to make a just decision.

I did not go around including New inexperienced people into the viable opinions I collected.

I'm not feeling sorry for anyone here.

Assuming you know or understand me is a uneducated thing to think.

Quality over quantity is easily discerned when a larger group of competitive players is taken into account rather than only 7 of us.

I'm not being stubborn nor am I being unfair in my claim that the overall opinion of the competitive community is important to this tier decision.

This one in particular as opposed to most not to minimize the importance of any decisions made in the past of here on in the future.

 

2014 < 2015 > 2016

 

 

7 hours ago, Bilburt said:

I feel like that if the poll would have a vote in the final decision made then there wouldnt be any reason for anyone to complain.

I can agree with this for once.

 

[OrangeManiac]

@Hotarubi

 

If the poll is your possible proof that "majority of the community wants Snorlax banned", it's not going too well because the vote is literally 18-17 in favor of a ban. I only wish the poll showed who voted and what for reliability reasons. To be honest, I personally don't see why polls can't be a thing, as long as they aren't the sole decision maker but to avoid shitposting in threads that don't contribute nothing else but which side they're leaning in.

[NikhilR]

Damnit I hate how forgetful I am but when I was in TC, there was a community vote for a particular ban where each voting member had to send a PM to an account (I think created by Noad) with the links of the officials that they had participated in, as sign of credentials. The forgetful part is that I don't remember whether the final decision on the ban was ultimately done by the community or whether the voting was taken just to have an idea of what the community's stance was.

[OrangeManiac]

1 minute ago, NikhilR said:

Damnit I hate how forgetful I am but when I was in TC, there was a community vote for a particular ban where each voting member had to send a PM to an account (I think created by Noad) with the links of the officials that they had participated in, as sign of credentials. The forgetful part is that I don't remember whether the final decision on the ban was ultimately done by the community or whether the voting was taken just to have an idea of what the community's stance was.

That was the infamous Blisslax ban decision when there was no 3rd OU member. The 3rd vote (deciding) was made by player vote with more than 3 official OU tournaments played in x amount of time. On our "golden" era polls were really common as added to threads but it lead to some controversy as Gengar got banned 6-1 votes even when 54% were against the ban. (of ALL voters)

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Damnit I hate how forgetful I am but when I was in TC, there was a community vote for a particular ban where each voting member had to send a PM to an account (I think created by Noad) with the links of the officials that they had participated in, as sign of credentials. The forgetful part is that I don't remember whether the final decision on the ban was ultimately done by the community or whether the voting was taken just to have an idea of what the community's stance was.

The OU council was composed of Senile, Robo and Zebra, Senile left and was replaced by DrCraig. Since DrCraig did not initiate the 2015 test ban on Blissey and Snorlax, he was not allowed to vote as a council member on that decision. To avoid a potential tie, Noad gave the community Senile's vote. This mean that Zebra, Robo and the competitive community decided 3-0 that Snorlax and Blissey would get banned.

 

The decision making vote was extremely time consuming for Noad, created a lot of complciations and this is why they are avoided today.

[Hotarubi]

2 minutes ago, gbwead said:

The decision making vote was extremely time consuming for Noad, created a lot of complciations and this is why they are avoided today.

Regardless of being time consuming.

I think that it is needed in this situation.

[NikhilR]

5 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

That was the infamous Blisslax ban decision when there was no 3rd OU member. The 3rd vote (deciding) was made by player vote with more than 3 official OU tournaments played in x amount of time. On our "golden" era polls were really common as added to threads but it lead to some controversy as Gengar got banned 6-1 votes even when 54% were against the ban. (of ALL voters)

 

3 minutes ago, gbwead said:

The OU council was composed of Senile, Robo and Zebra, Senile left and was replaced by DrCraig. Since DrCraig did not initiate the 2015 test ban on Blissey and Snorlax, he was not allowed to vote as a council member on that decision. To avoid a potential tie, Noad gave the community Senile's vote. This mean that Zebra, Robo and the competitive community decided 3-0 that Snorlax and Blissey would get banned.

 

The decision making vote was extremely time consuming for Noad, created a lot of complciations and this is why they are avoided today.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that up. Jeez I even forgot about how we had 3 different members for each tier. Such a long time ago....

Edited October 4, 2016 by NikhilR

[Bearminator]

If we will make poll and try to change decision AFTER it's made, we wouldn't need TC anyway. Imagine doing this with all decisions...
I don't like snorlax myself, but TC are players with a lot of experience. We can disagree, but that doesn't mean they will change decision just because of that. 

[Bilburt]

I think that we all can agree on the fact that a community vote wouldnt be a bad thing if even a good thing.

The question remains that if the poll is to be added, whether it also should have influence on the final decision. From my point of view it would be good if the community has say in, I'd say important decisions. If it is either by giving the polls outcome a vote which would have the downside of having a total of 10 votes, or influence the decision in any other way (open to ideas).

on topic of TC, me and some other people I know would love to have more transparency, for example Tyrone's thread barely got into any details about why snorlax wasnt banned to uber besides the obvious vote that went into favor of having snorlax stay. Again I will note that some people in TC have tendecies to ban/unban for themselves rather than representing the community that has their preffered meta (not stall) also, adding two new members who got to vote who were obviously against the ban of in this case snorlax(feel free to correct me if this is not the case) is rather suspicious