Decided to jump the gun a bit and post this now. My main concern is that I feel after a certain number of consecutive votes for OU status a suspect should not be elligible to be voted on again. Let's take a look at Excadrill. Nomiated 4 times, voted on 4 times, OU 4 times. It's clear that Excadrill is not likely to be banned in the near future, so why is it still being voted on? An unlimited number of votes is just asking for the voter pool to eventually shift to just the right number of voters in favor of banning Excadrill, when all previous votes show for the contrary. There would of course, need to be cases for extenuating circumstances. If Excadrill was blocked from being a suspect and then Drizzle was banned, that would certainly be grounds (pun not intended) for it to be allowed as a suspect again. I would hope that this reasoning would also apply for weathers. Another concern I have is the allowance of users who have not obtained voting reqs to nominate suspects. They haven't earned the right to vote, so why do they have the right to decide what is voted on? I know that the higher-ups are weeding out the poor nominations, but this still seems like something that should not be allowed to me. Discuss away. If you feel the system is fine as is, explain why. If you have other options you wish to discuss, then go for it, but please keep this from being a "current system vs council" thread, because that is not what this is about.