RU (Jedi) Council - The Return Of

[Oglemi]

Hi everyone,

So, I'm going to pretty much get right down to it. What we've basically decided to do for suspects is to have a council vote, just like what we did for Alakazam and Sableye, only now we'll have the system ironed out a little more here.

Section 1 - What the Council is

The council will consist of 9 people, however the council will be different every single "round" or phase, and become something what I like to call a "cycling council." What this means is that only three people can serve on the Council two rounds in a row, with the exception of Nails because he's the co-leader of RU and I trust him to stay up-to-date on the metagame (and if he doesn't he'll relenquish his seat for that round). So for example, next round, Heysup, PK Gaming, Zephyr, doomvendingmachine, myself, and Fried Rhys will be ineligible to be on the Council, insuring fresh blood gets injected into the Council every round. They will all be able to join the Council (except myself because I'm pre-emptively excluding myself from the votes here on out) after that though.

Section 2 - How the Council is Elected

The Council will be handpicked by myself in a variety of ways. You as the people that are vying to be on the Council won't (and shouldn't) have to write paragraphs or even nominate yourselves to be on the Council. All of the work falls on me to pick the best people to be on the Council (you are free to suggest people to be on the Council, but you cannot in any way advertise yourself. Don't think it's a good idea to bribe people to suggest you either, they have to do it on their own free will.)

I will be taking many different things into consideration when I am picking people for the Council. This is basically what the seats will look like, but it is not set in stone:

1st seat: Whoever is #1 on the ladder at the end of the round. (Can repeat)
2nd seat: Whoever showed consistent high rankings* on the ladder.
3rd seat: Whoever showed consistent high rankings* on the ladder. (Can repeat)
4th seat: Whoever showed the best** forum presence/discussion starter.
5th seat: Whoever showed the best** IRC presence.
6th seat: A combination of the above roles
7th seat: A combination of the above roles
8th seat: A combination of the above roles (Can repeat)

*Consistently high or multiple account highs on the ladder (think top #15). I will be checking periodically to see who is at the top of the ladder.

**Defined subjectively, but along the same lines as to whoever is picked for Poster of the Month.

I feel this system would give those people who have a deep understanding of the metagame but not enough time to ladder a chance to participate in the Council. However, your ladder ranking, forum presence, and IRC presence will all be taken into account when I'm picking seats. Don't think that you can just have good IRC/forum presence but never step foot on the ladder (the only person that is kind of immune to this is whoever reaches #1 at the end of the round). I'll be keeping tabs on virtually everybody, and you should always have a good ladder standing (think top #30), so don't slack off!

I realize that it may be worrying that I may just pass over the "lesser" users (those without badges or low post count) but I can assure you that this won't happen in the slightest. Everyone is going to have a chance to be on the Council, and as long as you are visible, you'll have a good chance to be on the Council (this doesn't mean spam like hell coughcough). I also realize that may seem pretty subjective, but I feel that I have a good mix of both objectiveness and subjectiveness to balance the system out. Also, the cycling system pretty much ensures that you'll always have a good chance of getting on the Council.

Section 3 - How Suspects are Chosen

Suspects will be chosen by whatever you guys are talking about in the np: thread and whatever is causing hell on the ladder. I think when the time comes it'll be pretty obvious as to what can be deemed a suspect to be voted on.

Section 4 - What Happens When a Suspect Isn't Banned

Suspects that don't reach a ban cannot be voted on by the next Council, bar major metagame shifts (think Alakazam/Sableye). If a Pokemon isn't banned, tough luck, you guys are going to have to deal with it for another round! This is where nominating people you like to me comes into play, because you want me to notice people who you think will vote a certain way.

I will make exceptions to Pokemon if, like I said, a major shift in the metagame occurs, or if there is enough public outcry for wanting to get something out of the tier. But for the most part, there will be no double jeopardy.

 

[Rakan]

I have a question pertaining to the voting system. I'm not necessarily too concerned about this, but will voting as a part of the council give you eligibility for the Tiering Contributor badge? I'm sure many people aiming for that last or second-to-last voting requirement are wondering the same thing.

(I don't really care tbh but it's a question for the general public)

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

Just going to say I haven't laddered using this name at all, and I know of other users who do the same(most honestly). Are we expected to ladder using our forum names, or will you be finding our alts by means of IP/alt checks etc.?

 

[Pocket]

It's awesome that you guys are streamlining the suspect process. However, I believe that the former council members SHOULD be eligible for another run if they are most qualified in any of the conditions you've listed. I guess that's why you're testing in the first place :d

Also, I am interested in hearing your (and Nails) thoughts on an argument I brought up on the UU senate board about the ban conditions:

"Getting 3 votes to ban something seems ridiculously precarious imo, and hardly an unanimous vote. I feel like a ban requirement should happen if 4 out of 5, 5 out of 7, 6 out of 9, etc deemed the Pokemon or tactic BL. Again, having a larger senate pool would make this process more flexible."

Why does restricting the voting decisions to a select qualified few results in a change in the conditions of a ban? To me, ban is an emergency decision, and should only be realized if the significant majority opts for it. A 51~60% support for ban seems too divisive to send a Pokemon out of a tier, imo.

I realize that Sableye was banned by a simple majority, but the ban requirement should be revisited, imho.

Anyways, thanks, again, for leading these innovative suspect runs!

 

[HuntSaboteur]

I think you should double the amount of seats - first and second on the ladder, two people who showed consistently high rankings, the two best forumites, the two best IRCites, and five or so extra seats. That makes 13 - an odd number.

 

[Oglemi]

I have a question pertaining to the voting system. I'm not necessarily too concerned about this, but will voting as a part of the council give you eligibility for the Tiering Contributor badge? I'm sure many people aiming for that last or second-to-last voting requirement are wondering the same thing.

(I don't really care tbh but it's a question for the general public)

Yes, those who vote on the Council will go towards earning the Tiering Contrib badge as far as I know.

Just going to say I haven't laddered using this name at all, and I know of other users who do the same(most honestly). Are we expected to ladder using our forum names, or will you be finding our alts by means of IP/alt checks etc.?

This question was brought by Honko last night, and I told him that I would be doing alt checks on PO, but after thinking about it more, I think I'll take a different route.

Basically what I what I was thinking I'm going to do is keep a running log whenever I periodically check the ladder rankings (it'll be about 3-4 times a week, give or take) and I'll just jot down the top ~30 and take a glance at the top ~50 each time. When the round ends I will open an Alt Identification thread of those alts/users that I consistently saw at the top of the ladder (this means that if you only reach the top of the ladder at the end of the round you may not be in this Alt Identification thread except for whoever is #1). Once I find out who is who, I will reveal the Council the following day so that I can match alts to usernames on the forums and see if their ladder placement coincides with their forum activity/IRC activity, etc.

So, when I open the Alt ID thread I will already have an idea of the forum/IRC users I want on the Council, but this Alt ID thread will be sure that they were at or near the top of the ladder too. I will make exceptions to those people who have exceptional forum/IRC presence but don't always have a good ladder ranking.

Obviously using your forum name on the ladder would make this 80x easier on me, but I'm not going to make everybody just use their forum name all the time.

It's awesome that you guys are streamlining the suspect process. However, I believe that the former council members SHOULD be eligible for another run if they are most qualified in any of the conditions you've listed. I guess that's why you're testing in the first place :d

Also, I am interested in hearing your (and Nails) thoughts on an argument I brought up on the UU senate board about the ban conditions:



Why does restricting the voting decisions to a select qualified few results in a change in the conditions of a ban? To me, ban is an emergency decision, and should only be realized if the significant majority opts for it. A 51~60% support for ban seems too divisive to send a Pokemon out of a tier, imo.

I realize that Sableye was banned by a simple majority, but the ban requirement should be revisited, imho.

Anyways, thanks, again, for leading these innovative suspect runs!

I realize a simple majority to ban something is a little tricky, but I feel that that's a minor side effect to the council system. I want to try this Winner Takes All kind of system first, and if it turns out that the next bans are too controversial I'll consider making it a requirement that the bans have to be a supermajority. I have faith in the Council at all times to make the right decision.

I think you should double the amount of seats - first and second on the ladder, two people who showed consistently high rankings, the two best forumites, the two best IRCites, and five or so extra seats. That makes 13 - an odd number.

Again, I'll consider this after this round, but I feel that 7 is a good number. If anything the next round I would only increase the number on the Council to 9 or 11. 13 is a pretty high number imo.

 

[Joeyboy]

I support the Jedi Council! I really like that each tier is exploring new ways to handle suspect tests. A great thing about this council is it has given me incentive to play the RU tier, a tier which I have little to no experience in. While I do not expect to be elected, I believe these ideas are wonderful because they encourage players to participate in otherwise unfamiliar metagames. Great idea guys!

 

[jas61292]

Ok, Ok. Anyone who has seen my posts on similar subjects probably expects a major anti-council post right now. But you know what? Even though I do have some problems with this, overall I would actually give it my support.

First and foremost though I will reiterate one of my major concerns with any council style system. The limiting of the number of people who vote means that many qualified people might not vote even if they are more then qualified. However, while I prefer a system where that problem does not exist, the revolving of the council members does a decent job alleviating this problem. If something happens that is really against what is wanted by the general people, a new council can always come in to give a new point of view (on a similar note, I don't love the idea of one person getting to always be on it though. Nothing against Nails, but I just prefer all people to have an equal shot and no one to get special treatment). I would still suggest that the council be expanded (by around 2x, but depending on total tier participation), but the general system seems fine.

I would also like to say that I am in full support of the different type of way to get seats on the council. While I am a huge supporter of the purely objective method that the former OU and UU system used, I highly appreciate the fact that some of these seats can go to people who clearly demonstrate the know what they are talking about even if they are not the greatest battler. I believe this system does the very best job of having players strive to be the best, but also contribute to the tier in other ways.

While I still would prefer the ranking system formerly used by Smogon, the move away from that is something to be discussed elsewhere, and I really can't say too much against this plan. Good job.

 

[lars]

All this sounds pretty good.

Just a few personal questions. (maybe they were already answered and I missed them)

+ About how long will these "phases / rounds" last?
+ Is there a max number of suspects?
(Even a ban or two can make new 'mons powerhouses or destroy the dangerous presence a different one had due to synergy, etc.)
+ Will suspects always be on a Pokemon? will a Pokemon ever just have an ability banned? (Ex Speed boost ban on sharpedo / Volt Absorb on Lanturn...bad examples I know >.<)

...and my 2 cents, I also think 11 members. 10 voters, with one member only for input and then provide tie breaking vote should a 5 to 5 vote arise. (perhaps this tie breaker member could be a repeating council member...)

 

[tomtom5858]

I am, in general, fairly pro-council (despite the fact thus means I'll never get to give input to the metagame) but I feel that seven is a low number. Seven is a bit to prone to bandwagoning, as only two (or even one) people have to jump on the musical carriage for a vote to turn from a simple majority to a super majority, or go down from a simple majority to a minority of voters in favour of banning a suspect. The larger the number of people voting on something, the less of an impact bandwagoning will have on the final outcome. Even a slightly higher number like eleven or thirteen would be the better option, in my opinion.

 

[Oglemi]

All this sounds pretty good.

Just a few personal questions. (maybe they were already answered and I missed them)

+ About how long will these "phases / rounds" last?
+ Is there a max number of suspects?
(Even a ban or two can make new 'mons powerhouses or destroy the dangerous presence a different one had due to synergy, etc.)
+ Will suspects always be on a Pokemon? will a Pokemon ever just have an ability banned? (Ex Speed boost ban on sharpedo / Volt Absorb on Lanturn...bad examples I know >.<)

...and my 2 cents, I also think 11 members. 10 voters, with one member only for input and then provide tie breaking vote should a 5 to 5 vote arise. (perhaps this tie breaker member could be a repeating council member...)

This Stage will end on Nov. 14th, at 11:59 EST which I put in the np: thread.

There is no max number of suspects, but remember, whatever isn't banned cannot be voted on by the next council, but they can be voted on by the next council after that.

I'm open to different kinds of bans, but generally I would much prefer simple Pokemon bans.

And yes, I know that seven is a relatively low number, and I will definitely consider raising the number after this Stage and I probably will, but I want to see how this Stage plays out first.

 

[Nails]

+ About how long will these "phases / rounds" last?
+ Is there a max number of suspects?
(Even a ban or two can make new 'mons powerhouses or destroy the dangerous presence a different one had due to synergy, etc.)
+ Will suspects always be on a Pokemon? will a Pokemon ever just have an ability banned? (Ex Speed boost ban on sharpedo / Volt Absorb on Lanturn...bad examples I know >.<)

...and my 2 cents, I also think 11 members. 10 voters, with one member only for input and then provide tie breaking vote should a 5 to 5 vote arise. (perhaps this tie breaker member could be a repeating council member...)

- Similar to how the other tiers have done things. A few weeks in the beginning, gradually increasing as stuff gets banned.
- We're aware of these issues, and though there isn't a hard limit, it very likely won't become an issue. I don't think we'll have more than three or four suspects per round, and there won't necessarily be a council every round either. It's going to be handled on a case by case basis.
- I'm fairly opposed to banning abilities, items, and moves generally. Like the above situation though, everything will be handled on a case by case basis. Stuff like Moody and Soul Dew are special cases and will be treated as such.
- What's the difference between an 11 man vote and a 10 man vote with a tiebreaker? A 6-4 turns into a 6-5? Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I don't see the point of that.

I am, in general, fairly pro-council (despite the fact thus means I'll never get to give input to the metagame) but I feel that seven is a low number. Seven is a bit to prone to bandwagoning, as only two (or even one) people have to jump on the musical carriage for a vote to turn from a simple majority to a super majority, or go down from a simple majority to a minority of voters in favour of banning a suspect. The larger the number of people voting on something, the less of an impact bandwagoning will have on the final outcome. Even a slightly higher number like eleven or thirteen would be the better option, in my opinion.

The idea of a council is to get the very best people in the community to create the tiers, and they will hopefully be much harder to sway with people bandwagoning. As Oglemi said though, we'll be reviewing the system at the end of each round.

 

[Stratos]

- What's the difference between an 11 man vote and a 10 man vote with a tiebreaker? A 6-4 turns into a 6-5? Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I don't see the point of that.

I'm not agreeing with the ten-man-vote thing, but there is a slight difference in the case that someone abstains from the vote.

 

[Twannes]

11 man vote ensures no 50/50 cases or something of the sort occurs. Anyway i tihnk this is a great idea which helps RU a lot!

 

[Erebyssial]

The only thing I dislike about this system is that a Pokemon should absolutely not get banned when the vote is only 4-3. When the vote is that close, there is clearly enough doubt that the Pokemon is actually broken, as was proven by Sableye. It basically means that 1 person's opinion can change the fate of an entire tier. =/

 

[lars]

Oglemi and Nails, Thanks for answering the questions.

- What's the difference between an 11 man vote and a 10 man vote with a tiebreaker? A 6-4 turns into a 6-5? Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I don't see the point of that.

Don't worry, it's not harsh. I'm always welcome to constructive criticism.

Oh, my school also uses that stupid 10 person + 1 tiebreaker for disciplin issues-I think it's just a false sense of 'democracy', especially that Abstain counts as Do Not Ban.

pretty much. I've seen it used a few places and I guess it works for the United States Senate (interpret that as you will)

Not saying it's the best, it's just a suggestion

 

[waterwarrior]

Wow, why'd it take me so long to reply to this thread? I believe that (please note in advance I am in no way asking to go back to the suspect voting process atm) we should apply a modified version of the "what if x doesn't get banned scenario" based on past suspect testing.

Take the case of Sableye, where the vote was 4-3. If it turned out to be 3-4, it clearly shows that it has the potential to be broken, and should be discussed by the next council imo. However, if a suspect gets 1-6 or 2-5, I agree it should not be considered for the next council unless the meta has a major shift.

Of course, I will probably never be on this council, but the council idea has my full support. Might as well throw my (probably denied) 2 cents in.

 

[BattleStar]

This looks cool. I can see that a lot of people are deserving of the spot. I like the idea of new blood, it will be great for RU!

 

[AlphaJolt]

I think that 9 would be an ideal number of voters because 7 seems small and 11 seems big (to me at least). I like the system and am excited to see how this goes.

 

[Oglemi]

aight I updated the OP a bit to reflect the 9 man Council, the rest of the process will stay the same though except for the fact that up to 3 people can repeat two rounds in a row.

 

[Oglemi]

we are reshaping the RU Council; I will be posting a new thread with the details momentarily.

 

[Oglemi]

After talking with Texas Cloverleaf, we have decided to bring back the rotating council system in full. Texas will be taking the full-time 9th slot in place of Nails. The rest of the spots will be chosen as normal and outlined in the OP.

Congrats to Ciele for winning the council challenge! To reward him we have decided to give him the #8 seat. This leaves 6 slots open for the upcoming round.

In order to address the concern over the TC badge, I have decided to have TC awardable to those who reach the 8 tiering-related votes, at which point they'll also be eligible for TC alumnus should they decide to quit.

I'll be posting the time when this round ends in the np: thread. Have fun and good luck!

 

[Oglemi]

OK, there's been some complaints about the TC badge in relation to RU and how it'll fit into the mold of the other tiers doing permanent councils.

Here is how I defined the TC badge in it's current form.

• TC is rewarded automatically to tiering leaders
• TC is rewarded for those who are both on a council, and have taken part of a council vote
• TC alumnus is rewarded to those with 8 tiering-related votes (votes must be significant and an objective vote that requires a certain qualification criteria beyond being recognized as a good player in the past or present)
• TC alumnus is rewarded to tiering leaders
• TC alumnus is rewarded to those who have significant influence over the tiering process (ie. DougJustDoug and X-Act)
• TC is removed from those who were on a council, but do not have enough votes to go toward the 8 tiering-related votes when they quit or are removed from the council. Subjectivity for length of time while on a council before quitting or being removed from a council may be taken into account for rewarding TC alumnus for those that did not achieve the 8 tiering-related votes, particularly for those tiers that were considered "balanced" for an indeterminate amount of time. Basis on badging is left up to the tiering leader in this situation.
• TC is removed from those who did not achieve the 8 vote count threshold for suspect tests that have now quit or are no longer active.

What I can do is that for the rotating council system is have it so that 4 tiering-related votes in the tier in question are required for the TC badge. However, in order to receive the alum badge, only 8 tiering-related votes in general are required for the badge (across all tiers and generations). So for example, if I have 3 tiering votes from DPP, I would still need 4 votes in RU to get TC. The problem arises in that this makes it hard to decide when to remove TC for inactivity. If someone gets TC for 4 votes in RU and only those 4 votes, but then stops playing RU altogether but doesn't "quit," I would have to make the decision as to whether or not to remove the badge. The 4 votes in a tier isn't inconceivable either; to put it in perspective, most of the members of the most recent council had 3 votes in RU alone.

In order to make it "easier" to get the 4 votes for a single tier, I can make it so every seat is repeatable, but make it harder to repeat a seat. For example, if I were to earn a seat in one round, and I did the same amount of work next round, but Molk did about the exact same as I did, Molk would be considered before me for the seat. However, if I put in more work then I would get the seat.

So that's where the issue is at. I'd love to hear some suggestions on how to work the rotating council into the mold of the current TC description.

 

[dragonboy52]

Are we going to use Pokemon Showdown's ladder or Pokemon Online's ladder?

 

[DittoCrow]

Here's what I think it should be like:

We keep the 7 man senate. They come together and decide the suspects, vote, write their paragraphs, etc. However, we award votes to the top x number of players on the ladder, and they just do a simple bold vote. They would need 8 (or more/less) of these to get the TC badge. In addition to this, the senate has the final say in the vote, and will use the opinions of the non-senate members to decide what to do. Like last round, the senate members would need to get 1350 (1300 sounds reasonable) at any point in the round to maintain their spot. Members on the senate would get the TC badge for being on a council and have taken part in a vote.