re: ZF - I believe Berks already touched on this but no, it does NOT matter whether croagunk or meowth or purrloin would be broken with z conversion; what matters is what is in the meta and not random hypotheticals that are only tangentially related. "Policy" advocates basing tiering decisions off the current metagame with the intention of removing a broken/unhealthy/uncompetitive/what have you element from the tier.
I don't know why people are comparing random past situations that differ from the suspect and are pretending like they are exactly the same (Levi's post is a good read in regards to this) when they really aren't.
Also various people I've talked to on discord and PS still believe this is a complex ban...? I guess i should expand, a complex ban involves a ban on a combination of item/move/pkmn; simply banning conversion is not banning a combination. Yes, you're doing the exact same thing that banning Normalium Z + Conversion or Porygon + Conversion would do, but that just makes this an effective simple ban. You don't define a ban "simple" or "complex" in terms of the problem you're addressing, you do it in terms of the actual statement of the ban. I'm really not sure what the confusion is here exactly so if someone could explain that'd be cool.
I'm not sure what precedent we are worried about setting but OU is likely to do their own thing anyway; having a unified framework for dealing with Z-moves is great, but these are case-by-case regardless so there's really no issue with going ahead on this.
re: doka - No move is "broken" by itself; I really don't see how anything "by itself" becomes broken, because you don't have moves without a Pokemon to run it on. This ties in with the "hypotheticals" point I'm referring to; these are pretty irrelevant to actual policy discussion and don't bear any real meaning. This isn't a "silly way of nerfing it" so much as... removing a broken element from the metagame? Again I'd redirect to Levi's post which I've linked above because it does a pretty good job of addressing these arguments.
Unrelated but I really wish people would stop treating this as some sort of convoluted favoritism when there's clearly an argument to be had here; I don't mind having the debate, although my opinion hasn't really changed from reading the posts so far.
I don't know why people are comparing random past situations that differ from the suspect and are pretending like they are exactly the same (Levi's post is a good read in regards to this) when they really aren't.
Also various people I've talked to on discord and PS still believe this is a complex ban...? I guess i should expand, a complex ban involves a ban on a combination of item/move/pkmn; simply banning conversion is not banning a combination. Yes, you're doing the exact same thing that banning Normalium Z + Conversion or Porygon + Conversion would do, but that just makes this an effective simple ban. You don't define a ban "simple" or "complex" in terms of the problem you're addressing, you do it in terms of the actual statement of the ban. I'm really not sure what the confusion is here exactly so if someone could explain that'd be cool.
I'm not sure what precedent we are worried about setting but OU is likely to do their own thing anyway; having a unified framework for dealing with Z-moves is great, but these are case-by-case regardless so there's really no issue with going ahead on this.
re: doka - No move is "broken" by itself; I really don't see how anything "by itself" becomes broken, because you don't have moves without a Pokemon to run it on. This ties in with the "hypotheticals" point I'm referring to; these are pretty irrelevant to actual policy discussion and don't bear any real meaning. This isn't a "silly way of nerfing it" so much as... removing a broken element from the metagame? Again I'd redirect to Levi's post which I've linked above because it does a pretty good job of addressing these arguments.
Unrelated but I really wish people would stop treating this as some sort of convoluted favoritism when there's clearly an argument to be had here; I don't mind having the debate, although my opinion hasn't really changed from reading the posts so far.
Last edited: