Okay, let's rip the bandaid off - SCL III will keep the same format as SCL II (3 OU + Ubers UU RU NU PU LC DOU).
I'll try to break down the reasoning as thoroughly as possible.
Including Monotype would be setting a new precedent for Smogon Tournaments. Even in a vacuum, outside of any consequences on the format of SCL, this would be a monumental change that we are not comfortable to make off the back of just 1 month of discussions.
On: Currently supported tiers, and potential for change
To explain why, let's look at the formats that Smogon Tournaments currently support:
0) CG OU
1) All oldgen OUs
2) Usage-based tiers from UU to PU
3) Ubers and Little Cup - not usage-based tiers, but something akin to the upper and lower bounds, with strong traditions and over a decade of play
4) Doubles OU - a special case we'll talk about more later
Now, let's see if and where there is space for these things to change.
1) shouldn't ever change, and isn't relevant to this thread regardless
2) has only ever expanded downwards (to include more tiers), with the creation of RU and later with the expansion to PU. The lower bound here being subject to potential changes shouldn't be out of the question, but there should be more clearly defined metrics here, or at least a set list of criteria to look at that we collectively agree are meaningful. These criteria would be useful both in arbitrating the calls for PU to be cut, and inevitable future calls for it to be (re)added and/or for things to reach even lower to ZU. As it stands - with no policy or collective agreement on what should and shouldn't be used to change the status quo - we think staying with the status quo is adequate, especially 1 month before SCL and with Grand Slam already underway.
3) are strong Smogon traditions that shouldn't ever really be in question save for Mazar/STag situations which would force our hand. Safe to say both tiers are doing better than that. I don't really see any argument for removing LC when they've been here for a decade and nothing has really changed for them.
4) is where Monotype would fit. There is precedent for the inclusion of "special" formats. The problem here is defining what is and isn't acceptable for "special" formats. Some (even inside the TD team) think that DOU should be a one-off exception in this sense and nothing else should really ever be considered. Others believe that there's space to expand for tiers that are doing especially well.
There are two greater policy questions of (1) should we ever accept ANY other special tiers after DOU and (2) if so, how do we determine that such tiers would be ready for inclusion.
On a personal level, I'd love to say (1) yes and (2) when they're at least comparable to the average usage-based tier in ladder+circuit presence and community size (as long as they're cartridge legal + not, like, Metronome-only levels of uncompetitive). I am pro-inclusion of Monotype.
On a "being the head TD" level, I have to say (1) it's an open debate that needs to be discussed much more, beyond the scope of just Monotype, and (2) even if we come to an agreement that expansion in this sense is possible, you have to address posts like this one for the specific case of Monotype.
So I suppose in practical terms, step 1 is establishing a policy and a process that allows us to weigh those voices objectively. I am more than willing to work out a defined pipeline for such metagames to eventually earn official representation, but with no such thing in place it's very hard to write off the criticisms. And it is also possible that in discussing such pipelines, we land on the answer that those anti-inclusion voices are the majority and there will never be a pipeline for further inclusion of 'special' metagames.
But above all these policies need to be laid down first. Without them, Monotype isn't anywhere near the levels of overwhelming support that would justify such an unprecedented change in status quo.
A footnote: 10 slots vs 12 slots, etc
Team sizes of 8, 10, and 12 have all proven to work just fine in Official Team Tournaments across the years. Using tournament size as a mean to argue for more or less inclusion is putting the cart before the horse. Whichever tiers deserve representation will be represented, with CGOU luckily being adaptable to anything between 2 and 4 slots within reason (with 3 being preferred, but not mandatory), to always allow us to reach an even number. If there was unanimous and enthusiastic consensus towards Monotype being included, we could've done 4ou 12 slots comfortably. If there was unanimous and enthusiastic consensus towards PU being cut, we could've done 4ou 10 slots. And so on.
Tournament formats adapt to the needs of the metagames they support fairly well. Deciding which metagames get that support is always the priority.
This thread will be locked, since the format of SCL III is confirmed. A new thread can/should be made to discuss the other policy issues mentioned above.
I'll try to break down the reasoning as thoroughly as possible.
Including Monotype would be setting a new precedent for Smogon Tournaments. Even in a vacuum, outside of any consequences on the format of SCL, this would be a monumental change that we are not comfortable to make off the back of just 1 month of discussions.
On: Currently supported tiers, and potential for change
To explain why, let's look at the formats that Smogon Tournaments currently support:
0) CG OU
1) All oldgen OUs
2) Usage-based tiers from UU to PU
3) Ubers and Little Cup - not usage-based tiers, but something akin to the upper and lower bounds, with strong traditions and over a decade of play
4) Doubles OU - a special case we'll talk about more later
Now, let's see if and where there is space for these things to change.
1) shouldn't ever change, and isn't relevant to this thread regardless
2) has only ever expanded downwards (to include more tiers), with the creation of RU and later with the expansion to PU. The lower bound here being subject to potential changes shouldn't be out of the question, but there should be more clearly defined metrics here, or at least a set list of criteria to look at that we collectively agree are meaningful. These criteria would be useful both in arbitrating the calls for PU to be cut, and inevitable future calls for it to be (re)added and/or for things to reach even lower to ZU. As it stands - with no policy or collective agreement on what should and shouldn't be used to change the status quo - we think staying with the status quo is adequate, especially 1 month before SCL and with Grand Slam already underway.
3) are strong Smogon traditions that shouldn't ever really be in question save for Mazar/STag situations which would force our hand. Safe to say both tiers are doing better than that. I don't really see any argument for removing LC when they've been here for a decade and nothing has really changed for them.
4) is where Monotype would fit. There is precedent for the inclusion of "special" formats. The problem here is defining what is and isn't acceptable for "special" formats. Some (even inside the TD team) think that DOU should be a one-off exception in this sense and nothing else should really ever be considered. Others believe that there's space to expand for tiers that are doing especially well.
There are two greater policy questions of (1) should we ever accept ANY other special tiers after DOU and (2) if so, how do we determine that such tiers would be ready for inclusion.
On a personal level, I'd love to say (1) yes and (2) when they're at least comparable to the average usage-based tier in ladder+circuit presence and community size (as long as they're cartridge legal + not, like, Metronome-only levels of uncompetitive). I am pro-inclusion of Monotype.
On a "being the head TD" level, I have to say (1) it's an open debate that needs to be discussed much more, beyond the scope of just Monotype, and (2) even if we come to an agreement that expansion in this sense is possible, you have to address posts like this one for the specific case of Monotype.
This post to me is absolutely, undoubtedly in the right. The Monotype community absolutely should know where they stand. But when I asked the specific question ken raised in TD chat - "what can or should be concretely done or accomplished here?" - I was met with a non-negligible amount of "nothing, they should never see official representation".
So I suppose in practical terms, step 1 is establishing a policy and a process that allows us to weigh those voices objectively. I am more than willing to work out a defined pipeline for such metagames to eventually earn official representation, but with no such thing in place it's very hard to write off the criticisms. And it is also possible that in discussing such pipelines, we land on the answer that those anti-inclusion voices are the majority and there will never be a pipeline for further inclusion of 'special' metagames.
But above all these policies need to be laid down first. Without them, Monotype isn't anywhere near the levels of overwhelming support that would justify such an unprecedented change in status quo.
A footnote: 10 slots vs 12 slots, etc
Team sizes of 8, 10, and 12 have all proven to work just fine in Official Team Tournaments across the years. Using tournament size as a mean to argue for more or less inclusion is putting the cart before the horse. Whichever tiers deserve representation will be represented, with CGOU luckily being adaptable to anything between 2 and 4 slots within reason (with 3 being preferred, but not mandatory), to always allow us to reach an even number. If there was unanimous and enthusiastic consensus towards Monotype being included, we could've done 4ou 12 slots comfortably. If there was unanimous and enthusiastic consensus towards PU being cut, we could've done 4ou 10 slots. And so on.
Tournament formats adapt to the needs of the metagames they support fairly well. Deciding which metagames get that support is always the priority.
This thread will be locked, since the format of SCL III is confirmed. A new thread can/should be made to discuss the other policy issues mentioned above.