Cathy
Banned deucer.
Banning a pokemon from a tier is always a serious decision. It is not something any of us does casually as it removes an aspect of the game. Even if that pokemon is broken, it deserves to be seriously considered before it is banned.
Traditionally, we have used a system where a simple majority is required to reach a conclusion on an issue. However, there is nothing significant about a simple majority when it comes to banning a pokemon -- potentially half the sample disagreeing a pokemon should be banned is a big chunk of the relevant people, and not enough to justify banning it from the tier it is presently in.
In order to recognise the seriousness of moving a pokemon into a higher tier, I recommend that we switch to a 2/3 majority system. Specifically, if exactly 2/3 of the voters, or fewer, vote to move the pokemon into a higher tier, it should stay in the lower tier; only if more than 2/3 of the votes are to move the pokemon into the higher tier should it happen.
Requiring a supermajority for serious decisions is a long-standing tradition of many decision-making bodies, and I recommend that it be adopted here, in order to reduce "splits" in the community over what should be banned, and to recognise the seriousness of banning a pokemon.
So far among the previous suspect votes, there have been a few pokemon where the votes have been very close to 50-50. These controversies could all be avoided with a higher bar to ban a pokemon, while simultaneously making the choice to ban a pokemon more legitimate.
Traditionally, we have used a system where a simple majority is required to reach a conclusion on an issue. However, there is nothing significant about a simple majority when it comes to banning a pokemon -- potentially half the sample disagreeing a pokemon should be banned is a big chunk of the relevant people, and not enough to justify banning it from the tier it is presently in.
In order to recognise the seriousness of moving a pokemon into a higher tier, I recommend that we switch to a 2/3 majority system. Specifically, if exactly 2/3 of the voters, or fewer, vote to move the pokemon into a higher tier, it should stay in the lower tier; only if more than 2/3 of the votes are to move the pokemon into the higher tier should it happen.
Requiring a supermajority for serious decisions is a long-standing tradition of many decision-making bodies, and I recommend that it be adopted here, in order to reduce "splits" in the community over what should be banned, and to recognise the seriousness of banning a pokemon.
So far among the previous suspect votes, there have been a few pokemon where the votes have been very close to 50-50. These controversies could all be avoided with a higher bar to ban a pokemon, while simultaneously making the choice to ban a pokemon more legitimate.