xXBlu3BreathXx

I can't edit the OP but this is what the matchups should actually look like, sorry for the inconvenience.

-Dnd (/dnd) must be enabled within 30 seconds after the match has started (however, both players are able to go into dnd before the match starts, it would be wise to do this). If you fail to do so you will receive a yellow card, if you receive an additional yellow card you shall receive a red card which suspends you from playing for a week. In a scenario where you fail to follow the rules a third time and receive a third yellow card you will be given a black card (a black card bans you for the season). If you decide to disable /dnd during a duel then you will automatically receive two yellow cards. Not having /dnd on is the same as having it disabled, do you really think a suitable punishment for somebody who refuses to listen to a host should be let off without a proper punishment? I gave both players a warning before the timer was up, yes I understand there is a language barrier (though I refuse to believe typing /dnd then enter would be difficult when I provided instructions to both) but this was easily avoided if they had been informed by their teammate/manager prior to the battle starting. Whilst that is the main goal of the rule, deciding to not have /dnd on (despite being told to so) also violates the rule. It is not our fault when a player doesn't understand, especially when they can play the victim card to try and get away scot-free for breaking a rule. I have respect for you for trying to help out your player but we cannot let it slide.

ye

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wexxm0kygkZr7I3zYUSECeft4jwK3PpuRKuJHk2PmP0/edit?usp=sharing

Friendly reminder the auction will take place in 3 hours and 20 minutes from this post (7pm BST). https://discord.gg/MEuweGW

I asked that we wouldn’t reveal the votes publicly and by extension this means not explaining our decisions. I ask that you respect our decisions, though I understand that would be difficult without hearing our reasoning.

Sign ups are now closed, please lock this thread.

There you go!

Yeah that reason was probably because Conk was too slow in BWs metagame as it was plagued with weather wars, which Conk generally cannot deal with. The reason this problem was never introduced was because Smogon had access to legendary mons (mainly psychics like mew and jirachi) that could confidently switch into it and the introduction of fairy type later on. You seem to look at Smogons word as law, Smogon may have started the groundwork for competitive pokemon but in no way should any of their metagames be used to define a Pokemon as broken or not because of one of Smogons metagames said so. Previously in mmo Snorlax was banned twice, once with only a complex ban on curse and another flat out ban. Guts is currently preferred over sheer force because you can run flame orb to 1hko or 2hko any mon in the tier, yes I meant OU and not anything from lower tiers, the fact you would have to use a specific Pokemon to counter something just demonstrates how oppressive it is. You would require the right moveset (and prediction) obviously but that is the main issue, should a Pokemon be allowed to have such a huge threat to your team that you sac one or two of your potential switch ins to just to find out what set it is? Conk can run 3 main sets atm: Sheer Force Orb, Guts Leftovers and Guts Flame Orb. The coverage is up to the player but having to switch to a counter to all 3 of these sets is beyond ridiculous. Lets look at a realistic example: Player 1 has Conk and Player 2 has Chansey out, they have two options Gliscor or Starmie, Player 1 uses Ice Punch while Player 2 switches to Gliscor expecting a Thunder Punch and dies. Even if Conk had attacked the Starmie he would have still chipped it, if Starmie was offensive then Conk has already won, if not sure Conk is walled by that Starmie but Player 1 most definitely has some form to combat Starmie like a pursuit trapper or Ferrothorn. Currently only the tier council make decisions, this is just a thread to openly voice ones opinion.

I'm not entirely sure what you would define as a "fair outcome", I presume you want some sort of penalty system to not prolong tournaments, which is fair enough. However, I do not believe it is fair to discourage play styles (in this case stall) as every player is different, it would be like forcing someone to change their fitness routine when the one they have already been using has had great success. Altough not common, some games come down to pp (power point) stalling the opponent, say somebody wanted to use Dusclops in a tournament to make use of the ability Pressure, they would not be able to with this clause active. Dusclops can only be fully utilized on a stall team and with it being so passive it would contribute next to no damage dealt and constantly rack up damage, thus making you more likely to lose if timeout occurs. Now this is only one example but I'm sure there are others out there. Right now I believe it would be best to keep tournaments how they were previously, I don't think eliminating players by time is fair, as gb put it somebody could have lost even though they were in an advantageous position.

If you are unaware the most recent patch put forward a drastic change to tournaments, in which the player which dealt the most damage after a 60 minute time frame wins the duel. This greatly hampers team building strategies, it pretty much comes down to a coin toss if you have a stall vs stall matchup, this should not determine who progresses onto the next round. This is definitely not healthy to pretty much discourage a style of play, although the scenario is unlikely that a game goes on for over an hour any dedicated tournament player would probably wait for their next duel. Please I ask of whoever is in charge of this to reverse this decision.

I can understand from a managers perspective that some purchases can go wrong, but the only person to blame for those purchases is yourself. In general I don't like trades because it not only upsets the balance of teams but also individual players; getting traded off to a objectively weaker team doesn't feel great and could even lessen that players morale. While the manager most definitely impacts a players performance it is not the only variable. I'm not entirely against trades but if they were to be reinstated then they would not be available past the auction stage. We plan on using a pure auction if no trades is a thing, it would be senseless to not allow a manager a chance at obtaining their ideal player(s).

While we could assess trades to see if both teams are gaining roughly the same value, it would be difficult to foresee how it impacts the league as a whole. For example, team 1 trades off a player which they predict will lose in their main tier (for the rest of the season) and then ends up carrying team 4 to victory. Another point is that we would have to measure players off multiple variables like: how much did they sell for? are they performing well? are they known for being good? A good known player could sell for a high price and end up under performing, I believe that a team should be more supportive of their roster as whole and see it through to the end. PSL brings people together that you usually wouldn't have even spoken to, sure there are some ass holes but I don't think this is an excuse for managers to jump ship on a player they drafted. Another factor within these variables is that assessing whether a cheap good player is worth as much as a high cost under performing player is difficult, it just adds too many layers of complexity. Players would not be able to force a trade if trades cannot happen, if they decide that they don't like their manager then they got to suck it up and put their differences aside to realise that they are working towards the same goal; to win the PSL. I commend you for coming forward but it would seem a little silly for cheating to go unpunished. The reason why we introduced the rule for them to not manage was because a manager could influence their players (or at least a portion they know are willing) to cheat, since those players cheated in the past it is more likely for them to cheat again (compared to those who played by the rules). Since you technically didn't cheat in PSL 9 it would make sense for the punishment to be different for you specifically, I wouldn't like to suggest anything because of bias towards you as a friend. If @LKrenz and @MknsZblex could voice their opinion on the matter that would be great.

Because there is always someone trying to take advantage of another manager, sometimes even players hold themselves hostage to get onto another team. I understand that it lessens the managers duties but eliminating trades and midseason should sway away some devious antics.

I don't believe removing Draco Meteor is the right way to go. Firstly the most prominent switch in for Hydreigon is Mantine, which walls Hydreigon with ease. 252 SpA Life Orb Hydreigon Draco Meteor over 2 turns vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Mantine: 162-190 (84.3 - 98.9%) -- not a KO. I'm aware that there are some gimmicky sets that run electric moves or Taunt/Roost that would beat Mantine but these are options already available to Hydreigon, the addition of Draco Meteor wouldn't suddenly make this Hydreigon set OP. Presuming this patch gives both Draco Meteor and Eviolite means Hydreigon would have another hard counter in Chansey. 0 Atk Life Orb Hydreigon Superpower over 2 turns vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 266-314 (74.5 - 87.9%) -- not a KO. 236+ Atk Life Orb Hydreigon Superpower over 2 turns vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 362-427 (101.4 - 119.6%) -- guaranteed KO in 2 turns. If you decided to run this much attack you would either be dropping speed or special attack, both of which would be making Draco Meteor much less threatening. In my opinion the Taunt set would be the way to go with beating this Pokemon. The point I am trying to make here is either Hydreigon won't break through these two popular picks in OU without dropping Draco Meteor from its move set (or severely limiting the use of Draco Meteor) because the taunt set really dislikes lowering its special attack, thus it would not even use Draco Meteor. Even switching a steel type into Draco Meteor can provide you with momentum because of its resistance. In regards to an offensive match up, sure Hydreigon will be getting many kills with Draco Meteor alone but this does not make it overpowered, after using this move your opponent is provided a swing turn to setup something like a swords dance, which could outright beat you if you're not prepared.