Proceeding with the Suspect Process

[Jumpman16**]

That is why we encourage people to apply for special permission if they feel they deserve it. If someone were to only miss the second checkpoint, and then only by one point of deviation, but not think that we would hear his or her case out...how much did he or she want to vote, really? Same goes for the current process, actually...your marks are 1713/67 or 1663/54 and you don't actually apply for special permission? Do you want to have a say in this or not? (And I would probably be very, very inclined to let these people in to give the votes of people like 5KR as little weight as possible.)

[X-Act]

Originally Posted by Fat Obi

Something somewhat off-topic that I still feel I ought to say is that the specific requirements for voting are arbitrary. There is no real reason to use, say, 73 deviation instead of 76 or 72. With how close the vote is, such a change may have either left out or let in someone who was on the margin, and that small change in the voter pool could be enough to change the outcome of the ballot, which is why a small margin should not be seen as some mandate.

They are based on a simulation of my Excel sheet of the glicko-2 system with the Shoddybattle parameters; hence they aren't arbitrary.

I assumed that a person needs to play 20 battles in 10 days to show interest. When I simulated that, the deviation was never greater than 95 after 20 battles and never greater than 73 after 40 battles.

[Hipmonlee]

Would the check point system prevent a person cramming a lot just before the first check point and then not battling again during the month?

Have a nice day.

[Jumpman16**]

i'd imagine there is a relatively easy way to determine whether or not someone played in checkpoints two and three—if we didnt check this we wouldn't be doing anything different from what we just did with skymin

anyway:

[16:04] <@christopher> <@Jumpman16> we want to test lati@s for a month then revisit skymin
[16:04] <@christopher> leaving skymin in ubers?
[16:04] <@christopher> as long as the lati@s test is done properly on a clean suspect ladder, i am ok with this

that's that, i will make my "np: Lati@s" thread shortly

[JabbaTheGriffin*]

are we testing these individually or separately? considering they are slightly different (latios has more offensive options, latias has more defensive/support options) i really think we should test them one at a time.

edit:

read "So Lati@s is up now. It has been determined that it'd be more fair to enforce a makeshift "Species Clause" with these two pokemon, rather than testing one for one month and its sibling the next, and rather than allowing both to be used at the same time which would go against the aim of testing one Suspect in isolation at a time. We feel that they are similar enough that enforcing Species Clause will still give us the information we need to vote on both of them."

don't agree but whatever guess i missed having my say on that part.

[david stone]

I am opposed to a checkpoint system to avoid "cramming" because there's no reason to believe that battles at the end of a test are somehow less valid than those at the start. You're not somehow less likely to encounter the Pokemon.