On Sleep Clause

[Lily]

So since it's been pretty unclear what I was going for in the OP as evidenced by other posts in the this thread and people talking to me on Discord I wanna take a minute to clarify some other things.

Sleep Clause's main issue is that it breaks the first rule of tiering policy:

the main reason I didn't cite this was because I thought everyone knew it (it was 4am when I wrote my original post so I was clearly suffering from a bit of a lack of sleep myself...) but I understand that that's not good reasoning to not lay things out. I instead opted to make my post a half-rant half-reasoning to actually tackle this other than "it looks nice" since people on here just love to make terrible, brainless posts about how we're tiering for aesthetics or whatever when that's clearly not the case, termi and MMII have hit the nail on the head and covered what I wanted to say before I got the chance to say it, though I get the feeling the sarcasm in MMII's post was lost on some people. in particular i'd like to quote part of termi's post since it sums up everything perfectly for me and explains much better than i originally did with point 3.

As it stands, then, we have for the sake of convenience kept a clause that undeniably alters cartridge mechanics in a significant way even though a feasible and relatively painless alternative - a ban on sleep moves - is available to us. The question that should be answered in this thread therefore is not "are Sleep moves problematic enough in the current metagame to warrant further tiering action" because we already collectively agree that under circumstances where Sleep Clause did not exist it would be a problematic mechanic worthy of a significant nerf at the very least. What should instead be answered by those critiquing the OP is why this mechanic is at once broken enough to warrant such a significant nerf while also being somehow integral enough to the metagame to deserve special treatment in the form of a game mechanics-altering clause.

here's one way to look at it: imagine if things were the other way around right now, sleep was already banned and someone wanted to propose Sleep Clause - there's no shot it'd get anywhere under current tiering framework. I don't see why it should be any different now just because it's been this way for whatever number of years.

anyway @ rby / oras / whatever other gen has come up:

Before anyone asks, no this shouldn't automatically apply to every tier across every gen.

this wouldn't apply to your gen unless you want it to, it's not a direct response to something randomly being broken now, it's a proposal to change an antiquated part of tiering for this gen & further gens to follow so that we can have a ruleset that makes more sense than the current one. it shouldn't shake up past gens unless their tiering councils agree with it.

I don't really have much to argue w/ the other lower tier TLs who disagree with this because it's not relevant in their tiers. King's Rock was never relevant in UU but it was pretty obvious degeneracy so arguing in favour of keeping it was stupid. I suppose there's a fundamental disagreement on the strength of sleep there and I don't think I'll get through to anyone who feels that it's not broken. I do want to respond to some of Mossy Sandwich's points though because I found them to be quite interesting, mostly on the clause itself because it's clear we don't really agree on counterplay and that's fine - I'd also like to ping them to let them know that they can request posting access here so they don't need anyone to proxypost for them. Mossy Sandwich

Sleep Clause
While I don't think sleep should be banned, I think the current Sleep Clause is a pretty clumsy way of implementing a one sleep limit. The current clause still allows players to use Sleep moves when they've already put an opponent to sleep, but if that move hits a target that could be put to sleep otherwise, it just fails. This is not only confusing and punishing to newer players who don't fully understand the clause, it's also not accurate to how it would be applied in a cartridge game. Assuming both players play on cartridge and decide to apply Sleep Clause, they would simply not use a Sleep move once one opposing pokemon is put to sleep. Disabling the use of sleep moves after putting one opponent to sleep is actually a very simple way of applying the clause while also making it impossible for players to accidentally waste a turn because they forgot or didn't know about it and it keeps the simulator closer to cartridge play.

the glaring issue here is that this has too many exceptions. for example:
- you are out of pp in all of your non-sleep powder moves and suddenly have to struggle despite actually having 22 pp remaining;
- you can be (convolutedly) encored into sleep moves while something else is asleep;
- i know there are other silly situations others can come up with that i'm not able to think of right now, and this still doesn't address the effect spore issue (though i feel that one's fine to leave alone)

the only solution here is some sort of mod which doesn't actually make it any better than the current iteration of sleep clause. it doesn't really help with the confusion new players will face ("why is my move greyed out? i'm not taunted") and doesn't address the core problem that this is a mod and directly contradicts the first rule of tiering philosophy. i don't think polishing the mod is a good solution when it shouldn't rlly exist to begin with.

anyway i completely accept that my original post was poorly written and that i probably should've had someone look over it before clicking send. what i would like to see is people making arguments about why sleep is different to other mechanics in that it's worth preserving via a modification to the game when we aren't supposed to do that unless absolutely necessary (eg desyncs or whatever). the strength in whatever individual meta shouldn't be a factor here, and if the main argument is just that it's been this way for a long time then i think that's pretty poor justification to stick to the status quo. alternatively if anyone has ideas for a better solution then i'm all ears.

 

[Hipmonlee]

the glaring issue here is that this has too many exceptions. for example:
- you are out of pp in all of your non-sleep powder moves and suddenly have to struggle despite actually having 22 pp remaining;
- you can be (convolutedly) encored into sleep moves while something else is asleep;

Just allow breaking sleep clause when you have no alternative. None of these scenarios ever actually meaningfully impact outcomes.

 

[Irpachuza]

the only solution here is some sort of mod which doesn't actually make it any better than the current iteration of sleep clause. it doesn't really help with the confusion new players will face ("why is my move greyed out? i'm not taunted") and doesn't address the core problem that this is a mod and directly contradicts the first rule of tiering philosophy

This is just not true and isn't giving a fair trait to a good and functional proposal that would allow a mechanic that we know that works and isn't unhealthy nor broken on its current -modded- state. The discussion should be "is it possible to make the mod mechanically accurate?" and only then, if there is no agreement on that, we should go into banning territory. Because yes, no one wants all their mons put asleep at the same time.
What the reform of the mod proposes is making the mechanics more similar to the original games and makes Sleep Clause just the same as if a referee weren't allowing you to click the move. This isn't against game mechanics, on the contrary, it's a formalization of the mod into a tacit accord that adds layers to the original mechanics, like the PS/Smogtours timer, HP percentage, and battle chat/tooltip giving information.
If greyed out sleep moves may confuse the new users, I don't think adding a note around the move or on its tooltip would be too hard, and it would actually be another improvement from the current state of the mod, since now you discover it once your move failed and you wasted a turn.
Finally I agree with Hip's take. If your opponent forces you to keep using a sleep move on a last/trapped Pokemon, Sleep Clause shouldn't activate and I think that's fine, since the blame is on the opponent. The only stance that, in SS Smogon singles territory, you can force yourself into being locked on a sleep move with a mon is with a Choice item/Gorilla Tactics, but even then if it's your last mon and you click the sleep move, you lose eventually, so I don't see an issue with the clause being deactivated there either.

tl;dr Make Sleep Clause a formalization of an accord by greying out sleep moves when it's activated. Add a message to the tooltip explaining why. When you are forced to use a sleep move while you have a last/trapped mon locked on it, don't apply the Clause. This is not a mod on game mechanics, nor an abusable situation on either side.

 

[sugar ovens]

There is no need to change Sleep Clause. The is no reason to. It is a perfectly functioning mechanic that allows us to keep one of the main status effects in the game. Sleep-inducing moves are useful additions to movepools of passive Grass-types or certain sweepers that are typically held back by other factors.

It works well as it is. So why do you want to make things worse? Why is there even a discussion about how to shoehorn the existing Sleep Clause into the "tiering rules", how to formulate it in a different way.. It's ridiculous, it literally will not help anything at all. We are not playing on a cartridge, are we? Smogon makes the rules and frameworks that you are trying so hard to accomodate, not GF, Nintendo or Flying Spaghetti Monster. YOU are Smogon. Make decisions that help the game, not some bureaucratic-ish nonsense.

Sleep Clause is not a problem. It doesn't need a solution.

 

[Lalaya]

I still feel every solution proposed to replace the clause with another mod will end up just the same as the Sleep Clause, while confusing a lot of old/new players on how its changed while not being a real solution to it. Replacing it with another mod serves ZERO purpose and it shouldnt be honestly object of discussion imo

point is should we get rid of it or not to stay true to the policy? and imo we dont need to

 

[AM]

Uh we need to stop saying "confusing new players" as justification for anything because new players are one of two things. The person that is upset they can't run their ash team and never come back, the person that finds a place in a community, stays, eventually understands and deals with the rules, and will probably end up here at some point in their time here. Smogon as a whole isn't very easy to get into as a green player these days, it's suited for people already familiar with mons or playing it for years.

Far as the whole discussion goes I think some sort of formal poll would be the more simple solution than the circular discussion in this thread.

 

[Dorron]

I don't see the problem on just not allowing the player to click the sleep moves when they already put into sleep a pokemon. It could exactly work as Shadow Tag and trapping abilities in general do, if you try to click the move it won't let you use it, the same way it won't let you switch against a trapping ability user. If new players don't understand that then they won't understand Pokemon in general.

I also agree with Hipmonlee and Irpachuza. If your opponent forces you to break Sleep Clause, then let's break it. It's your opponent's fault, not yours.

 

[Tuthur]

This is just not true and isn't giving a fair trait to a good and functional proposal that would allow a mechanic that we know that works and isn't unhealthy nor broken on its current -modded- state. The discussion should be "is it possible to make the mod mechanically accurate?" and only then, if there is no agreement on that, we should go into banning territory. Because yes, no one wants all their mons put asleep at the same time.
What the reform of the mod proposes is making the mechanics more similar to the original games and makes Sleep Clause just the same as if a referee weren't allowing you to click the move. This isn't against game mechanics, on the contrary, it's a formalization of the mod into a tacit accord that adds layers to the original mechanics, like the PS/Smogtours timer, HP percentage, and battle chat/tooltip giving information.
If greyed out sleep moves may confuse the new users, I don't think adding a note around the move or on its tooltip would be too hard, and it would actually be another improvement from the current state of the mod, since now you discover it once your move failed and you wasted a turn.
Finally I agree with Hip's take. If your opponent forces you to keep using a sleep move on a last/trapped Pokemon, Sleep Clause shouldn't activate and I think that's fine, since the blame is on the opponent. The only stance that, in SS Smogon singles territory, you can force yourself into being locked on a sleep move with a mon is with a Choice item/Gorilla Tactics, but even then if it's your last mon and you click the sleep move, you lose eventually, so I don't see an issue with the clause being deactivated there either.

tl;dr Make Sleep Clause a formalization of an accord by greying out sleep moves when it's activated. Add a message to the tooltip explaining why. When you are forced to use a sleep move while you have a last/trapped mon locked on it, don't apply the Clause. This is not a mod on game mechanics, nor an abusable situation on either side.

I don't like having the idea of allowing some mechanics through in-battle agreements. With this you're trying to fix something without moding it, however do we want to open the way to every stuffs we ban? It is certainly possible to find 'agreements' that aren't against game mechanics to balance Dynamax, Baton Pass, OHKO moves, etc. We may know the mechanic works in its current modded state, but that's only because we allowed to mod it in the first place. You are suggesting that sleep should get a preferential treatment over other banned mechanics because we used to mod the game to allow it. It doesn't make sense to me to justify partially allowing sleep because we made the mistakes to mod it in old gens.

 

[Dorron]

I don't like having the idea of allowing some mechanics through in-battle agreements. With this you're trying to fix something without moding it, however do we want to open the way to every stuffs we ban? It is certainly possible to find 'agreements' that aren't against game mechanics to balance Dynamax, Baton Pass, OHKO moves, etc. We may know the mechanic works in its current modded state, but that's only because we allowed to mod it in the first place. You are suggesting that sleep should get a preferential treatment over other banned mechanics because we used to mod the game to allow it. It doesn't make sense to me to justify partially allowing sleep because we made the mistakes to mod it in old gens.

The difference between Sleep and mechanics like Dynamax, BP and OHKO moves is that the ways to balance Sleep are, from I've been able to see, much simpler than balancing Dynamax, BP or OHKO. For example, Baton Pass itself recently had two votings in which four/five options were considered plausible. Dynamax would be broken even if you knew what opposing Pokemon was going to use it (and matchups would probably be decided in which Pokemon could Dynamax in each team), and if we were to balance OHKO, the most we could do would be limiting it to a single use/ko, which then would modify cartridge mechanics again.

However, Sleep has demonstrated to be a much easier mechanic to balance, indeed, it was balanced ages ago. It's true that the current Sleep Clause Mod doesn't respect the first Tiering Policy rule, but it has been used for like ten years or more and Sleep hasn't been problematic besides BW, so why would it be very different to grey out the Sleep moves if an opponent is asleep?

 

[Finchinator]

As it stands, a strong majority of the SS OU council does not support acting on sleep or sleep clause in any capacity on its own.

We cannot dictate what other tiers or generations do here whatsoever, but SS OU will not do anything pertaining to sleep at this moment. As a tier leader, I will always keep an open mind and I am entirely on board if administration wants tier leaders to vote, but the OU council has a clear consensus on the matter. This should not be the end of this discussion as there are plenty of other formats discussed in this thread, but I will provide some insight into our conversation on the matter and ultimate decision to not act from an SS OU point of view.

Our discussion ultimately focused on the belief that sleep was not broken, nor uncompetitive, in SS OU as it currently stood. Moreover, there was no need to change the status quo in the eyes of many councilmen because of this. It is true that, as the OP states, there is an element of luck that comes alongside sleep, but the same can be applied to other forms of status as well. We used very specific justification and language when banning other luck related elements previously to make the precedent as narrow as possible. I understand why people could see sleep as a natural step forward in this direction, especially after recent luck related bans, but we feel there are competitive merits to sleep and the luck element is not an issue in our current metagame. In addition, we worry about the future consequences a ban of sleep could have in terms of precedent.

From there, there was brief discussion of the procedural side of things and how shifting the restriction of the clause to a ban outright would perhaps line-up more with a cleaner future ruleset, but ultimately this differences was regarded as negligible given the long history of sleep clause as a seemingly successful rule and not enough to change the status quo either. In addition, we agreed that including this in any public tiering survey would be more of a waste than anything else as the general public has seldom, if ever, complained about sleep or sleep clause to us throughout the generation.

 

[R8]

I don't see the problem with greying the sleep moves through an agreement, and if the consensus is that we want to not ban the sleep moves in a given meta, it might be the best solution, especially since smogon formats are quite literally agreements on a set of rules ; for example the dynamax clause is just not clicking the dynamax button in game. I believe the thread had a pretty bad start because it is obvious that sleep is not broken in its current state.

However, Sleep has demonstrated to be a much easier mechanic to balance, indeed, it was balanced ages ago. It's true that the current Sleep Clause Mod doesn't respect the first Tiering Policy rule, but it has been used for like ten years or more and Sleep hasn't been problematic besides BW, so why would it be very different to grey out the Sleep moves if an opponent is asleep?

Apologies if i don't understand your point correctly, but if you are saying that greying sleep moves is in practice almost the same thing than the current sleep clause, i would argue that this is actually a reason to change the sleep clause. In fact, we can argue that it doesn't really matter if the alternative does in practice the same thing if by enforcing said alternative we get rid of the need to mod the game.

I feel like on a policy point of view, there is little to no reason to at least find an alternative to the current sleep clause that isn't a mod, especially if the playerbase wants to keep sleep legal. So, in other words:

Why do we need to change the way we handle sleep?
I think we can all agree that we need to keep sleep in check in some way ; nobody is arguing for a metagame with unrestricted sleep. However, taking care of it with a mod just doesn't make any sense on the point of view of our tiering policy framework : if we had to fix sleep today for the first time, we for sure wouldn't have taken that direction.

There is one overhaul of the sleep clause that i believe will be less controversial, and can be potentially a good compromise:

Sleep Clause

If a player has already put a Pokemon on his/her opponent's side to sleep and it is still sleeping, said player can't use a sleep inducing move unless it is the only possible action.

(edited, see Irpachuza's post)
The pros are pretty obvious: we avoid an unecessary sleep ban while making formats enforcing this clause compatible with cart, plus we remove one of the very few exceptions to our tiering policy framework. There is a net positive doing that, and little to no costs.

(I'm very well aware that the SS OU council just took a decision already, but i was writing the post in the meantime so i'll post it anyway.)
((Also yeah, i used to support a full sleep ban, but i changed my mind: this would be a bit too excessive, especially if there are softer alternatives + the strong opposition against it))

 

[Irpachuza]

I fully agree that a review on Sleep Clause can be done to make it mechanics-wise accurate. R8, let me make a little change on your proposal:

There is one overhaul of the sleep clause that i believe will be less controversial, and can be potentially a good compromise:
Sleep Clause

If a player has already put a Pokemon on their opponent's side to sleep and it is still sleeping, said player can't use a sleep inducing move unless it is the only possible move action.

Since switching out should be a valid option to click in case of being locked on a sleep move.

A reform of the Sleep Clause is a little far from the original intention of this thread. It would require an intervention of the tiering leaders and consultation (on their part, I guess) on all Smogon Singles councils, specially on past gen tiers to double check that there are no mechanics shenanigans that can abuse the last part of the reform.

 

[Earthworm]

This is an interesting thread to me and I've participated in past similar threads. I'm going to give my thoughts as a GSC OU council member.

I like the intention behind a non-mod Sleep Clause implementation as well as the simplicity of the rule proposed by R8 above. Just noting that it's a decent nerf to sleep moves, since there are situations where you want to put a Pokemon to sleep again on the turn it wakes up, situations where you want to burn sleep move PP instead of other attacks, etc. This isn't strictly a problem, but it's something to be aware of and will throw some people off. This probably applies to GSC moreso than most other generations I'd imagine.

Another consideration is Sleep Talk + sleep move and similar. This could prove to be pretty strong, especially in GSC (e.g. RestTalk Hypnosis Misdreavus, RestTalk Lovely Kiss Snorlax are potential candidates that come to mind). Taking this into consideration, even though I like the idea of transitioning to a non-mod Sleep Clause, I am a bit worried it could prove disruptive and I am not sure whether more value should be placed in a more cartridge-adherent game simulation or preserving the current metagame as much as possible. Also, we have a Freeze Clause mod. I personally don't really want a Freeze Clause mod, but I think the fact we reinstated it shows what our users (or a significant subset of the users with power?) tend to value. I do appreciate the certainty it provides after one Pokemon gets frozen though, since I play many passive stall teams...

I think our old gen OU communities in general tend to have a significant amount of inertia when it comes to changing anything other than removing Baton Pass / low-hanging fruit RNG elements / trapping stuff, with some exceptions. Ultimately, I think we are going to find that this kind of proposal is lacking the support of the prominent tournament players and will therefore probably end up dead in the water. However, I hope it does garner some attention.

 

[termi]

Ultimately it would hardly be the end of the world for me if sleep doesn't get banned, but the reasoning provided by the OU council - which at the end of the day is the body that decides the fate of sleep clause in usage based tiers whether they like it or not - has been pretty inadequate in my estimation. None of the council members have expressed themselves individually bar xray, whose post is negligible in terms of content, and instead we got a post that treats the OU council as a monolithic entity and fails to really engage with some of the central issues at hand substantively. I would appreciate if we could get a bit more insight into how exactly they came to their decision, so I will respond to a few points made in Finchinator's post that hopefully will at least spur more elaboration, especially regarding the notion of "precedent" that imo all too often gets invoked selectively and opportunistically in these kinds of discussions.

Our discussion ultimately focused on the belief that sleep was not broken, nor uncompetitive, in SS OU as it currently stood. Moreover, there was no need to change the status quo in the eyes of many councilmen because of this. It is true that, as the OP states, there is an element of luck that comes alongside sleep, but the same can be applied to other forms of status as well. We used very specific justification and language when banning other luck related elements previously to make the precedent as narrow as possible. I understand why people could see sleep as a natural step forward in this direction, especially after recent luck related bans, but we feel there are competitive merits to sleep and the luck element is not an issue in our current metagame.

As I already indicated earlier, the degree to which sleep is broken and/or uncompetitive in the present situation under sleep clause should be treated as a secondary concern at most since it is an artificial situation created by a mechanics-altering clause. It's a bit disappointing that the OU council would choose to focus on this anyway, especially since I have not seen any real argument being made as to why I would be wrong regarding this matter and the OP of this thread later went on to back my position. In addition, if the OU council does believe that the question whether or not sleep is presently broken/uncompetitive deserves to be treated as the main topic of this discussion, it would be appreciated if they could at least expand a bit on why they believe sleep to have enough competitive merit to outweigh the luck-based elements it introduces to the metagame. I do not see how exactly you could determine to ban something as inconsequential as Bright Powder and not expect it not to have a slippery slope effect in terms of "precedent" regardless of how carefully worded the justification for the ban was.

In addition, we worry about the future consequences a ban of sleep could have in terms of precedent.

What precedent would that be exactly? I don't really see anything comparable enough to sleep moves to warrant a ban if sleep moves get the axe, so some elaboration on this point would be appreciated. In addition, why is "precedent" a legitimate argument in the case of a blanket ban on sleep moves whereas it apparently is not enough of a legitimate argument where it pertains to sleep clause, which blatantly contradicts fundamental tiering policy?

From there, there was brief discussion of the procedural side of things and how shifting the restriction of the clause to a ban outright would perhaps line-up more with a cleaner future ruleset, but ultimately this differences was regarded as negligible given the long history of sleep clause as a seemingly successful rule and not enough to change the status quo either.

This adds to my above critique that precedent is invoked selectively, since apparently here the harmful precedent set by sleep clause is outweighed by the simple pragmatic logic of "if it works, it works", which for me calls into question why precedent is even invoked in these discussions if it can be readily dismissed by simple pragmatism. Is the (hypothetical) creation of a harmful precedent a valid argument for/against tiering action or not? Are we supposed to rigidly conform to cartridge mechanics or can we alter them if we see enough reason to do so?* These are some fundamental questions regarding tiering philosophy which I do not believe have been sufficiently answered, since it is this very question that I think made the creation of this thread possible and necessary to begin with. In the absence of a sufficient answer to these questions, I can only see invocations of precedent and the Smogon tiering framework being used opportunistically, which seems undesirable to me and stands at the basis of my interest in this thread to begin with.

*Obviously the answer to the latter part of that question already was "yes" in the case of Dynamax, but arguably that mechanic is unique enough to where it can't really be used as an example for anything else.

 

[Finchinator]

Ultimately it would hardly be the end of the world for me if sleep doesn't get banned, but the reasoning provided by the OU council - which at the end of the day is the body that decides the fate of sleep clause in usage based tiers whether they like it or not - has been pretty inadequate in my estimation. None of the council members have expressed themselves individually bar xray, whose post is negligible in terms of content, and instead we got a post that treats the OU council as a monolithic entity and fails to really engage with some of the central issues at hand substantively. I would appreciate if we could get a bit more insight into how exactly they came to their decision, so I will respond to a few points made in Finchinator's post that hopefully will at least spur more elaboration, especially regarding the notion of "precedent" that imo all too often gets invoked selectively and opportunistically in these kinds of discussions.

This is entirely unfair. Sleep is a non-issue in OU, we are in the middle of the holiday season, and I explicitly posted saying we were busy and I will state our conclusions as soon as possible. We just handled a major suspect and an important series of evasion bans leading up to the holiday season, too. I did not want to hold up this thread because it was created with a good deal of time invested by the OP, who I respect a great deal, so I did everything possible to get the stance of my council out. Nitpicking for more posts at this time in such a short span is unreasonable. Also, Xray is no longer on the OU council.

We are also absolutely not the sole deciders of sleep. I made it a point to go out of my way in my post to state a tier leader vote or whatever administration decides is fine by us. You neglect that entirely.

I will gladly response to the rest later as there’s actual substance, but I’m on mobile at work right now, so it’ll have to wait until tonight.

 

[Myzozoa]

WRT the dogma of "cartridge mechanics", it exists as a sort of practical bridge between smogon tiering and the actual cartridge games, effectively prescribing that the smogon rules ought to be possible to observe when playing on a cartridge. The concern with sleep clause is its translatability into cartridge play because, well, as we implement it on showdown, sleep mechanics do not conform to the written sleep clause.

On a simulator I can click sleep powder after having already slept a pokemon, and I might want to do this knowing that I won't be punished like I would under supposed "Cartridge Sleep Clause mechanics". In simulator mechanics, my sleep move fails when attempting to sleep a pokemon after having slept one already , but on a cartridge, if I click sleep powder again and sleep a second pokemon, well I lose, I've violated sleep clause when I could have avoided it. I lose the same as if I used an illegal/impossible moveset. And we can easily contrive scenarios where the fact, that I can continue to click sleep moves on the simulator knowing they will fail, is actually to my advantage when it 'should' be causing me to lose.

To further highlight this discrepancy: if I sleep 1 pokemon w hypnosis, the sleep clause as written should permit me to use magic bounce to sleep any number of my opponent's pokemon provided they keep clicking a sleep move. As simulated the sleep clause count's magic bounced sleep moves as an instance of sleep and fails subsequent triggers, but as written sleep clause only applies to moves you use. If my opponent has additional pokemon put to sleep w magic bounce I am not liable according to the written sleep clause, but the simulator will still fail my magic bounced sleep moves. This gives my opponent an advantage when spamming sleep moves in the face of a magic bounce user, as they know if I switch in a magic bounce pkmn on the sleep move it will not trigger sleep on their pokemon.

So this is only to show that there is some difference between what we have implemented in the simulator and the cartridge mechanics, and it is probably imo good to resolve this tension and clarify what we want, because we may think a few things:

1. Sleep clause should be implemented in our simulator as written ("You lose if, at the end of your turn, two of your opponent's Pokemon were put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into, and neither have had their sleep removed since then")
2. sleep clause should be re-written.


There is nothing else to say on this matter imo, we've been playing the game wrong in this minor way that I have tried to demonstrate above. It is incredibly annoying and minor, and I would probably ignore it just because tradition, but I doubt most people feel this way.

Sleep ban notions:

To be as brief as possible: we are not ever to prioritize having the simplest ruleset or tiering scheme, but the most correct. This is why it is correct that in each tier the sleep question can be decided on a case by case basis. I am not really convinced by most of the arguments I've seen for banning sleep, but idc no thoughtful opinion here.

I would just finally point out that the issue of sleep clause as it relates to simulator mechanics is entirely separate from the issue of whether sleep is broken in any particular tier. So this thread is bringing up two issues.

 

[Finchinator]

As I already indicated earlier, the degree to which sleep is broken and/or uncompetitive in the present situation under sleep clause should be treated as a secondary concern at most since it is an artificial situation created by a mechanics-altering clause. It's a bit disappointing that the OU council would choose to focus on this anyway, especially since I have not seen any real argument being made as to why I would be wrong regarding this matter and the OP of this thread later went on to back my position.

My post was in direct response to the points raised in the OP itself, including using language from it at a point and directly referencing to it at another point.

Yes, I touched on sleep in it's current state in the metagame because that is the first step in the natural progression of this conversation and I am posting on behalf of a council that focuses on the tiering of the current metagame. However, we also dug deeper and discussed why we felt it was not necessary to change the status quo for our metagame, which involves sleep clause restricted sleep.

If you sense a trend in my phrasing, it is intended -- we are the SS OU council and our scope is limited to the SS OU metagame. You are asking us to discern the pros and cons of a clause that has been around much longer than any of us have played which we have grown accustom to. You notice a lot of other members of other current generation councils and communities posting similarly -- look at the first page where Specs, EviGaro, Fiend, and Rabia from PU, RU, LC, and NU respectively all posted their support for keeping the clause and not banning the status.

I do not see how exactly you could determine to ban something as inconsequential as Bright Powder and not expect it not to have a slippery slope effect in terms of "precedent" regardless of how carefully worded the justification for the ban was.

What precedent would that be exactly? I don't really see anything comparable enough to sleep moves to warrant a ban if sleep moves get the axe, so some elaboration on this point would be appreciated. In addition, why is "precedent" a legitimate argument in the case of a blanket ban on sleep moves whereas it apparently is not enough of a legitimate argument where it pertains to sleep clause, which blatantly contradicts fundamental tiering policy?

We just had an essentially unanimous ban of Bright Powder, Sand Veil, Snow Cloak, and Lax Incense. Throughout the discussion of these, I made sure to repeatedly shed light on the fact that the bans were entirely net positive because these elements added no competitive value to the metagame, strictly increasing evasion and contributing nothing else, which made the matter linear and the scope of the precedent set very limited.

Sleep is an entire status element that can be used strategically and one cannot refute that there is some competitive merit to this. It also has nothing to do with the topic of evasion. This comparison you made holds no weight in my eyes.

Finally, I do not subscribe to your belief that sleep clause fundamentally contradicts tiering policy given their longstanding coexistence. At a point, you have to accept it's place and we largely have. This goes hand-and-hand with my point before about the OU council and other current generation tiering figures largely being ok with the cause because of it carving out its own place in our tiering history.

And if you feel the issue is this fundamental that it boils down to contradicting the tiering guidelines, then the person in charge of that is the tiering administrator. Tiering councils, such as the OU council, are meant to enforce those guidelines in order to maximize competitiveness, but seeing as we have had this clause in place for longer than any of us have been around, it is pretty clear to see why we have embraced it, which again boils back to the string of posts I alluded to on the first page, and why I am confused as to why your dissatisfaction is geared specifically towards the OU council when we stated we were fine deferring to higher-ups given the procedural nature of the issue rather than the metagame specific nature of it.

This adds to my above critique that precedent is invoked selectively, since apparently here the harmful precedent set by sleep clause is outweighed by the simple pragmatic logic of "if it works, it works", which for me calls into question why precedent is even invoked in these discussions if it can be readily dismissed by simple pragmatism.

This is actually a good point. Precedent being applied inconsistently strikes me as bizarre, too. The thing is that Smogon has had a problem with inconsistent and partial applications of precedent for a long, long time. There has never been a perfect tiering system in place, not conceptually or practically. I do not know how to right this wrong, but I think invalidating every single argument made in favor of a pragmatic approach means we are suddenly not prioritizing what is best for our metagames and this does not seem best either. Be it extreme examples like Dynamax or lesser ones like RBY Freeze Clause, old generation Baton Pass restrictions, etc. -- there can be a thread dedicated to our inconsistencies and where the lines need to be drawn that goes far beyond the scope of this one.

In the absence of a sufficient answer to these questions, I can only see invocations of precedent and the Smogon tiering framework being used opportunistically, which seems undesirable to me and stands at the basis of my interest in this thread to begin with.

I do not disagree with the notion that people, including myself and other tier leaders, have used tiering policy framework and precedent in a fashion to specifically fit their beliefs without always prioritizing consistency. I just do not see why such a longstanding flaw is suddenly being held against me and my council specifically for sharing a stance that a large portion of this thread also shared when there are higher places to appeal more conceptual and universal things to. I do not believe my argument is perfect, but I also think no argument here was conceptually perfect and the same can be said for many other PR threads. I do not have all of the answers and I openly said it is fine for this to go above my council.

I am sorry if this is not a sufficient response to your inquiries, but this is the best I got. I am trying to explain as much as I can and be transparent. If you fundamentally disagree with me from there, you have every right to and I hope that whatever the best outcome for the community is happens.

 

[shiloh]

hi posting here bc the threads gotten kinda derailed / i want to focus conversation mainly on what lily was discussing / brought up.

ill start by saying, under no circumstances will sleep clause be updated / changed to become a "battle" side ban, aka greying out the moves in battle when called for. this goes against our current tiering philosophies, and as such should not even be discussed as an option going forward as it will not be considered unless these policies / philosophies change.

while this seems contradictory considering our current sleep clause, this clause only exists due to the history behind it / its implementation ages ago as it was not against any philosophies at the time (id imagine). if sleep clause had never existed, current tiering philosophies would say to either ban sleep moves as a whole (how bw has changed to do it) or ban the abusers if only one or two stuck out.

---

the way i see it, this thread should solely be a discussion on whether or not sleep clause should be done away with starting in this generation, and either banning sleep moves or focusing on the pokemon that become broken with the removal of the clause. any discussion further or making it a battle ban by greying out moves will be deleted from the thread, and if you want to discuss it further shoot me a pm and we can discuss it there / we can work on setting up a new thread discussing "in battle" bans, but this is not the thread for that.

---

on a personal note, i do think sleep clause is a bit antiquated in the fact that with our current policies we should aim to use cartridge mechanics / be cartridge playable as much as possible, and at the moment the only things breaking that are sleep clause / freeze clause (rby/gsc). i do however think the middle of the generation is the wrong place to start this implementation, and while abr was misguided in the way he went around it, i think removing sleep clause at the start of the next generation and instead tiering sleep moves / users is the proper way to do it. however, a thread should be made by ou council prior to the release of the next generation, as it would be a fairly large shift in the status quo. if other generations want to change their banlists it should be up to councils / a community vote like how bw did it, but i don't see a huge reason to act on it atm in any generation.

---

tldr: in battle greying outs will not happen without a change in policy, use this thread to discuss removing sleep clause as a whole only

 

[ABR]

every tier in every generation improves in terms of gameplay as well as policy if sleep moves are outright banned



to elaborate a bit more... if sleep moves don’t exist in ss (ou) that is precisely why they should be banned. if gameplay is the same regardless but you can get rid of sleep clause it’s explicitly a net positive change.

i agree that ss council or whoever should not authoritatively ban sleep moves from oldgens but again they’re either broken or useless there anyway.

 

[D4 Repertoire]

First, to reiterate the situation as it stands, currently up for debate is whether or not to remove sleep clause from current and future generations of OU. Not being debated (anymore) is whether sleep is broken or uncompetitive even with sleep clause implemented in the current generation OU (and lower tiers*). Also no longer up for debate is a different formulation or implementation of sleep clause (since sleep clause violates tiering policy, amusingly). Also, the issue of how to tier sleep (ban sleep, ban abusers), arises only once sleep clause is removed, so debating this before sleep clause is removed is premature**.

*

Lowers tiers being set up to inherit bans from OU via transitivity is their own inherent problem with their design. The goal of OU tiering is to make OU the best metagame it can be, not to cater to how this affects the nth usage-based metagame derivation of it at the cost of an inferior OU.

**

If it were questionable whether OU could be made playable without sleep clause, then this should be discussed beforehand; but it is clear that OU is playable with sleep simply banned, so this is not an issue.

That established, I will address points regarding removing sleep clause mod.

1.) Sleep Clause Violates the Tiering Policy Framework

It is clear (especially from shiloh’s statement about other formulations of sleep clause), that implementing sleep clause mod would not be a valid tiering proposal today for this reason. Consequently, it follows that keeping sleep clause mod should not be considered a valid tiering decision.

2.) “Sleep Clause Mod is the status quo.”

First, there existing a mod implemented on simulator that violates the tiering policy does not change the fact that it violates tiering policy and should not make keeping it any more valid as a tiering decision.

Second, since those in power have to this point elected to disregard the first point and permit defending the status quo as a valid proposal, suppose that we consider being the status quo is a sufficient argument to make it a valid option in the presence of tiering discussion. Even then, this is being used to not only say that is a valid option, but also that we should default to it in the absence of active reason to prefer another option, and then also that it is an active reason to prefer it as an option, and then finally that it outweighs active reasons to prefer other options. This is clearly stretching “change bad” way too far as an argument.

3.) “We have over time accumulated a history of using Sleep Clause Mod in tournaments.”

This at least attempts to be an active reason to prefer Sleep Clause Mod.

However,
a.) This is very low impact: tiers (even most old gens) change all the time, and claiming that the history of Smogon tournaments is significantly tied to its sleep clause is entirely inaccurate.
b.) This history is almost entirely in past generations; we are discussing tiering for current and future generations.
c.) This is clearly outweighed by unnecessarily diverging from cartridge mechanics, both because this is outlined in the tiering policy and because of the underlying reasons why this is a part of tiering policy (which I will cover later).

4.) “It is not the best time to remove sleep clause.”

First, I am inclined to disregard such points when contradictory versions are used to try to punt the discussion into the future each of the last two times this has been discussed. To clarify, Finch in this post said that the beginning of the generations was not the best time to act on sleep clause. Now shiloh in this post suggests that the middle of the generation is not best and that we should wait until the beginning of the next generation.

Second, it is fine to agree now on what to do and then after agree when to do it (whether starting with gen 9 or gen 8 and when to time this with regard to official tournaments).

5.) Diverging from cartridge mechanics is bad.

First, as previously stated, diverging from cartridge mechanics is bad because it goes against tiering policy. Even if this is permitted as an exception, removing the exception remains an active reason to prefer removing sleep clause.

Second, diverging from cartridge mechanics is bad because of the underlying reasons why the tiering policy was written such that unnecessary mods violate it.

These include but are not limited to
a.) The aim of the simulator is to simulate the game and its mechanics.
Zarel outlines this in this post.

b.) Not following mechanics delegitimizes the tier.
In the case of sleep clause mod, this is mitigated somewhat because there is no other option (imagine instead there were competing OUs with sleep clause mod and with sleep banned) and because everything else obeys cartridge (HP Percentage mod etc have already been addressed); however, removing sleep clause would still be an improvement in this regard.

c.) When mods are allowed, getting agreement on them is often impossible, whereas cartridge mechanics establish a clearly agreeable set of mechanics.
There is an already clearly established status quo with sleep clause; but despite this, there is still a lot of discussion around and support for a different formulation of the clause, which goes to show one of the many problems with such mods.

d.) Mods limit the playerbase.
There has been some discussion about this in this thread already. I will add that discussions in threads like this of the impact of mods (or anything really) on the popularity of Smogon and PS! are inherently biased because all involved parties must have not been deterred by such mods (or whatever) to have reached the point of being willing and able to participate in this discussion on Smogon. For this reason, it is important to make a deliberate effort to be extra mindful of such considerations. Also, the popularity of OMs compared to official tiers is strong evidence that mods limit the playerbase. Finally, I do not think that the "good players and community members would end up here anyway" really holds. Such notions overestimate the congruence between the amount of thought put into decisions and the magnitude of the consequences: it is entirely possible for someone who could become a great player or valuable community member to be deterred at the outset by off-putting deviations from cartridge, even if these seem small to those long entrenched in Smogon. In hindsight, it seems silly to forfeit all the good experiences and friends users can make on this site because one got tilted by sleep clause the first time they played PS!, but in foresight people do not consider such unknown futures when deciding (perhaps not even actively) to not play another game on PS!.

Altogether, removing sleep clause is clearly preferable for many reasons which significantly outweigh such appeals to the status quo as those advocating to keep the clause rely upon.

 

[Irpachuza]

the way i see it, this thread should solely be a discussion on whether or not sleep clause should be done away with starting in this generation, and either banning sleep moves or focusing on the pokemon that become broken with the removal of the clause. any discussion further or making it a battle ban by greying out moves will be deleted from the thread, and if you want to discuss it further shoot me a pm and we can discuss it there / we can work on setting up a new thread discussing "in battle" bans, but this is not the thread for that.

If after almost a week of debate and +40 policy posts, 5 different tier council members (OU, RU, NU, PU and LC) have already stated that they don't want Sleep Clause removed, and it has become already quite clear that the main critic against Sleep Clause is not its competitive viability but its mechanics legality implications, I don't really see a reason of why to gatekeep this conversation on a dicotomy of keep Sleep Clause as it is/ban Sleep.
This ruling will only create what is already happening, which is pro-ban users once again arguing against Sleep Clause for its legality implications, as we can see above. Yet it can't be argued against them with midway accords, suggestions, or re-implementations of Sleep Clause -on a thread called "On Sleep Clause"- because that would mean debating "in battle bans". Even the OP of the thread agrees that its legality is its main issue. Arguing that unregulated Sleep isn't broken is ridiculous. So the only counter-argument available is the "keep stuff as it is because it works" argument, which isnt really one that can be held on the terrains of mechanics/legality, as shown by D4's post above. I can't answer any of D4's arguments without suggesting compromises for the sake of legality. Yet there aren't arguments implying that the competitive viability of Sleep Clause along the years would require a ban of it as a whole. Again, currently, ban arguments hold on legality; five different tier representatives have argued against a viability pro-ban argument.
Mainly why I'm posting this and, in my understanding, don't expect it to be deleted, is because I'm trying to point that a conversation held on the dicotomy presented won't allow any kind of interaction, only two arguments shouting at a wall, or, at most, an extreme decision based on historical functionality or legality that won't really cover all arguments presented along a week on this thread.
Furthermore, what would be the point of reaching a consensus/voting between keep/ban now if there is going to be a parallel thread that may open the possibility of reassessing a modified Sleep Clause? What is the point of banning Sleep moves if a nearby parallel debate reinstates the issue?

I'm asking the tiering administration to re-think the optics and resources available for discussion on this thread, otherwise it will become moot and not a policy discussion, but a cycling of arguments that can't really touch each other. I know shiloh has stated that in a few days they'll clarify something, but I really don't see a point of directly gatekeeping mid-point suggestions while we wait for it.

tl;dr the ruling on this thread by the tiering administration doesn't admit counter-arguments to "ban Sleep Clause" because it has been stated by almost everyone on this thread that the main pro-ban argument is legality. I don't see how this thread will have a fruitful conversation nor reach anything that isn't a ban based on legality (that can't be given counter-suggestions on its terms), or a "keep" based on historical functionality-status quo. Those two arguments move in different dimensions and by different principles, and the limited conversation won't reach a conclusion, much less consensus nor a mid-point solution.

 

[R8]

Honestly if that thread is only focused on either keeping the sleep clause intact or entierely, i think we can p much end here since it looks like the consensus is not banning sleep moves, although the idea of reviewing the sleep clause to find a way to keep sleep legal while being compatible with cart has not been explored enough here. If we have to open a new thread to review the way the sleep clause work, then we most def should just do it, either in the near future or close from the beginning of the next generation. Imo it wouldn't hurt to discuss about that topic in this thread, but if this isn't the right place to do so, so be it, and i understand the reasoning behind shiloh's post about this particular point.

One last point i wanted to mention is that it is in our best interest to make smogon's rulesets playable on cart, since they were originally made for that. Sure, PS! is the place where most games in our formats are played, and the in game timer deters the playerbase from playing on cart, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep in mind what smogon's formats were originally made for, so it would be a net positive if we find a way to make sleep clause entierely reproductible in-game.

 

[Excal]

It's funny how history repeats itself. Ojama's post in the last sleep clause thread from two years ago should have prevented the same thing from happening again, but it somehow didn't. Even though discussion has been shut down re: greying out moves, it's astonishing yet laughable that it was brought up again in the first place.

The BW sleep ban should not be exemplary. This was an absolute last resort option we had to take because the sleep mechanics specific to this gen were busted and severely hampered the competitive experience. Most of the people who actually play the game either want to ban sleep in its entirety from x gen (very extreme/drastic, but understandable) or leave sleep clause as is.

I'm of the viewpoint that we should keep as many core mechanics intact as possible unless they are severe handicaps on competitive play. Sleep Clause is simple, feels natural, and has allowed us to consistently balance an otherwise broken core mechanic. If anything, getting rid of the clause (assuming sleep is banned as a result) feels even less like you're playing on cartridge. Everyone knows about sleep clause, no one complains about its in-game implications, and debating about sleep policy has never gone anywhere productive in the last 10+ years.

I think this thread is way too flashy for the intention to be purely competitively-minded. I generally dislike threads with such an unnecessarily massive scope to the point where it becomes a derailed mess. I find them significantly less productive and encouraging of unqualified people to spout nonsense that no one wants to read. As a disclaimer I haven't read almost all the posts itt, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular. But I think we should leave it up to each gen to deal with sleep individually as opposed to neutral administration making a thread about sleep clause in all gens.

Let's not forget the game we play. While there's a fine-line wrt cartridge simulation, we're at a point with all the modifications our simulation gives us where small exception cases like sleep clause (which are mentioned in tiering policy) shouldn't be inherently bad. Let's not fix what isn't broken.

 

[D4 Repertoire]

I'm of the viewpoint that we should keep as many core mechanics intact as possible unless they are severe handicaps on competitive play.

This implies that banning sleep is preferable to modding it. Lack of sleep does not handicap competitive play.

If anything, getting rid of the clause (assuming sleep is banned as a result) feels even less like you're playing on cartridge

This is a poor way of framing things considering under this standard the noticeable lack of Kyogre, double team, and sheer cold are problematic. The concern is and should be whether the simulator's mechanics match that of cartridge, not of the fact that tiering things to be competitive makes things feels different than when they aren't tiered to be competitive.

Everyone knows about sleep clause

You clearly haven't worked your way through low ladder in a while.

no one complains about its in-game implications

Hello? This thread (like its many predecessors) is literally just that.

and debating about sleep policy has never gone anywhere productive in the last 10+ years.

First, trying to prematurely terminate discussions of the issue only perpetuates this (and similar posts are perhaps a contributing factor to previous failures as well).

Second, previous discussions to this point resulted in sleep clause mod remaining in tact, and perhaps the fact that discussions to remove it continually resurface should be a sign that there is actually a problem with keeping it. (Were sleep moves just banned for good, proposals to implement sleep clause would, I imagine, not be constantly resurfacing. Not to mention that they would not be entertained as valid proposals to begin with)

Third, things never change until they do (seems like a silly thing to write, but your comment is arguing that we should not attempt to change something that has not already been changed), and previous efforts failing ought not preclude further discussion when the problem (inconsistency with cartridge mechanics) persists.

I think this thread is way too flashy for the intention to be purely competitively-minded. I generally dislike threads with such an unnecessarily massive scope to the point where it becomes a derailed mess. I find them significantly less productive and encouraging of unqualified people to spout nonsense that no one wants to read. As a disclaimer I haven't read almost all the posts itt, so I'm not calling out anyone in particular. But I think we should leave it up to each gen to deal with sleep individually as opposed to neutral administration making a thread about sleep clause in all gens.

At every opportunity the posts in this thread continually clarify that this discussion is for gen 8 OU (or maybe 9 instead of 8) and then would be the default for future gens. No one is advocating that each gen cannot deal with sleep individually.

And if you actually read the posts in the thread, you would find that the discourse is generally progressing and becoming more focused over time, not getting further derailed (for example we have moved past discussing the viability of sleep under sleep clause in lower tiers and are on the edge of moving past discussion of different formulations of sleep clause).

we're at a point with all the modifications our simulation gives us where small exception cases like sleep clause (which are mentioned in tiering policy) shouldn't be inherently bad. Let's not fix what isn't broken.

See my previous post. There is a well-defined problem with a clear solution.

 

[Excal]

This implies that banning sleep is preferable to modding it. Lack of sleep does not handicap competitive play.

How could that be the case if my entire post is about keeping the status quo (modding it)? Lack of sleep can handicap competitive play depending on the tier.

This is a poor way of framing things considering under this standard the noticeable lack of Kyogre, double team, and sheer cold are problematic. The concern is and should be whether the simulator's mechanics match that of cartridge, not of the fact that tiering things to be competitive makes things feels different than when they aren't tiered to be competitive.

Sleep has been a part of competitive pkmn since the very beginning. This is a bad faith nitpick and misses the point of what I was saying.

You clearly haven't worked your way through low ladder in a while.

The learning curve is clearly not very steep. I was an 11-year-old playing wifi battles on cartridge and I immediately understood sleep clause.

Hello? This thread (like its many predecessors) is literally just that.

I exaggerated, but other than the minority that want sleep as a mechanic banned, the majority of tournament players seem to be fine with sleep clause as is.

First, trying to prematurely terminate discussions of the issue only perpetuates this (and similar posts are perhaps a contributing factor to previous failures as well).

Second, previous discussions to this point resulted in sleep clause mod remaining in tact, and perhaps the fact that discussions to remove it continually resurface should be a sign that there is actually a problem with keeping it. (Were sleep moves just banned for good, proposals to implement sleep clause would, I imagine, not be constantly resurfacing. Not to mention that they would not be entertained as valid proposals to begin with)

Third, things never change until they do (seems like a silly thing to write, but your comment is arguing that we should not attempt to change something that has not already been changed), and previous efforts failing ought not preclude further discussion when the problem (inconsistency with cartridge mechanics) persists.

My point this responded to is correct. It's hard to parse this incomprehensible response devoid of any relevant information.

At every opportunity the posts in this thread continually clarify that this discussion is for gen 8 OU (or maybe 9 instead of 8) and then would be the default for future gens. No one is advocating that each gen cannot deal with sleep individually.

And if you actually read the posts in the thread, you would find that the discourse is generally progressing and becoming more focused over time, not getting further derailed (for example we have moved past discussing the viability of sleep under sleep clause in lower tiers and are on the edge of moving past discussion of different formulations of sleep clause).

The OUTL essentially said to screw off (in a nice way), so the cg part is not relevant. I was responding to the OP which swept all gens in one.

See my previous post. There is a well-defined problem with a clear solution.

I think your response to my post was quite bad, so I won't be doing that.