I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed with this ladder round and I feel that whatever the result, be it ban or unban for deo-d, it should be pretty much completely discounted. The system is great when we're letting players vote who have solid win ratios and rankings and clearly know the tier, but when players with 2:3 (and worse) win:loss ratios are qualifying it just completely makes the whole system kind of worthless. This was probably some error with the ladder of course, but if in the future making reqs could be based off w:l rate in addition to score somehow I'd have a lot more faith in the voting system.
I don't understand it.
People who have a shitty W/L ratio in the end met the reqs for a simple reason : they had an almost perfect W/L ratio at the start.
So it's too easy to trash them and say that they suck in the metagame for this reason.
Want an example ? I have a terribad W/L ratio this suspect and you know what ? I don't care the slightest and I think I know this metagame enough to vote. I had so much glicko² at one point and the deviation was lowering so slowly that I did not give a single duck to my games. It was because I was flawless in the start that I could afford that.
I think it's unfair to look at my W/L in the end and say "okay he has a bad opinion on this metagame, he's probably bad". I played 110 games seriously, and my W/L is horrible because I had 2.5K glicko² at 90 deviation and I was like "Okay screw this, I don't care anymore, let's play gimmicks or whatever because anyway I just need to lower my deviation now".
So yes, too easy to stare at us from your "good ratio". One could say that your ratio was good because you faced bad players, and could argue that his shitty W/L is due to the level of the players he played against himself.
Improve the ladder ? Force people to not run dozen alts, is the only possible solution. But this will never be done.
No "improve W/L, glicko² etc.." nonsense please, else I'm just gonna make another alt, with a perfect W/L ratio and everybody will do the same. In the end we'll play between people at 3K Acre or just wait the perfect win succession.
And W/L means nothing, imagine that on the ladder, there are only 10 of the best OU BW players on smogon right now. They all "deserve" to vote, but what will be their W/L ratio ?
You see what I mean I guess, W/L depends on who you meet. And in every game, there is a loser, does that mean this loser wasn't good ? No, you can't say that because you don't know his level just by watching his W/L and I don't even understand how you came to that shortcut.
Last suspect I had a good W/L ratio, one of the best iirc I did cry about the number of games I had to play, I did not trash the other people doing the suspect because they had a less good ratio because I have no clue who they had to play against.
TL;DR : Don't dare take away the vote from me after 110 games or I go mad.
EDIT : I thought it was a ratio of 2 OR 3 W for a L that you were talking about.. oh well it's true that 2 wins for three losses is beyond my expectations of what is a low ratio.. whatever x)