Yeah, no re-election of incumbent senators until the debt is under control!...wait that's a different senate.I like this idea in general. The only thing I would question is the permanent appointment of senate members. Maybe replace 1/3rd of the members at the start of every new round?
IRC is important because honestly nothing tops real time debates. Forum debates are nice, but are often drawn out and don't very often reach conclusions. I put a few people that didn't use IRC on the UU council in DPP and quickly regretted it. It slows down almost every part of the process when things have to take place solely on the forums. That isn't to say I won't put anyone who doesn't frequent IRC on the Senate. I'm much more likely to put someone who consistently posts in the megathreads on the Senate than someone who never posts in them, but is on IRC every day. It's simply a complete weighing of UU community involvement. IRC is simply a portion of that involvement.I've come to decide I don't like this system. The big reason is the necessary subjectivity when selecting the senators. Yes, banning things themselves is subjective, but we should still eliminate subjectivity where possible. As it is I have the sneaking suspicion that the people who will be getting chosen are those who do things like regularly log on to IRC, which is why we have things like the Snunch quote on the first post. What does logging on to IRC have to do with Pokemon anyway? Why can't a person spend time to post here on Smogon but not log on to IRC? Why should someone like WhiteQueen who's hated by lots of IRCers (I think) but still sit pretty near the top of the leaderboard not be able to influence decisions directly? Somehow I suspect that people like Breludicolo and Scoopapa will not be selected even though they make good posts and are high on the ladder; the same thing already happened last gen for the Heracross vote.
The other problem is the forced mastery of English. Not everyone is good at English, yet they can be good at Pokemon. An example is Aqualouis - he has done well in tournaments and the OU ladder but can't express well why he thinks Excadrill is Uber. Should he be allowed to vote?
My 2 cents.
As for the senators being picked being subjective...so what? It's not going to be biased on things besides merit. The only judgment being made on Jabba's part are which accomplishments he thinks would be more important for a position on the UU senate.I know it's not my place (or the place) to defend the council-style choice but I am confused with your reasoning. You're concern is that it's subjective? Are you suggesting that it's less subjective than the rating requirements vote? That vote has no way of even having an argument presented. You just do well with said broken Pokemon and vote but you ARE NOT voting for whether or not the Pokemon is broken, you vote for whether or not YOU want the Pokemon removed from the game simply because of the nature that the ladder suggests. That is not only a more subjective vote but it is also not the correct vote.
This way, we actually logically deduce the best answers under direct supervision of the moderators. We can logically deduce the best answer within a small group of people unlike the other methods. Every way of banning is subjective.
If subjectivity is your concern, then we cannot do any sort of banning. If validity is your concern, this method out classes the requirement method.
Precisely. some of us havn't been around on the forums for several years and/or have other commitments in life that mean we don't spend half our lives debating in dragonspiral tower. But if people are good enough at pokemon (ie. they meet the reqs.) isn't this more important?Compare this: do you play Pokemon to win, or do you do it to impress Jabba?
With this system every single person that participates in discussion megathreads has an influential voice on the vote since the council members are our representatives. Your argument in general seems rather self concerned with making it on the council, instead of potential suspects and the state of the metagame in general.@Heysup - maybe every way of banning is subjective, but under the previous system, anyone who cared and was good enough could influence the final outcome. This isn't the case now. In addition to caring about the ladder, you have to care about the forums, care about C&C, care about IRC, debate anyone who has a different opinion, and finally impress Jabba enough to make him select you on the senate. There is a difference.
When it comes to voting, subjectivity is not good. The senators will necessarily be subjective when they make their tiering decisions, but by introducing the senate in the first place we also have another subjective decision, on who to put on the senate. The original method by rating requirements had an element of subjectivity as well on where to draw the line between voters and non-voters, but it's a minor problem because once drawn, that line was fully objective. Compare this: do you play Pokemon to win, or do you do it to impress Jabba?
I'm not going to say I don't trust Jabba or anyone else, but by having a single person or small group choose who votes rather than allowing everyone with enough skill to vote, it will skew the results away from what the majority of the skilled player-base wants. No one person should have the right, or the responsibility, to singlehandedly make decisions that could very well shape the metagme. That should always be a community decision.As for the senators being picked being subjective...so what? It's not going to be biased on things besides merit. The only judgment being made on Jabba's part are which accomplishments he thinks would be more important for a position on the UU senate.
Subjective =/= bad. It means there are value judgments being made, that's it.
Yes, it is true, people will always do what they personally want. However, in a system where all qualified people vote, the result is what the majority wants, whereas is a system like this, the result is what a tiny minority wants, and that may not match the majority.How is that any different from other ways of voting? There's always the possibility of people people pushing their own agenda. This way actually improves on that because there is discussion and very easy moderation from Jabba.
EDIT: They can lose their jobs...
As always, I agree with you on this note, considering a little-known user named Kinglypuff has placed consistently high on ladder and shown considerable skill in my battles with him, but has posted very little on the forums because of his lack of confidence with the English language (he speaks just fine imo, but regardless won't take my invitation to post his ideas in the suspect thread when people ask about Sun :/ ). We aren't all articulate English-fluent players, just the ones who post, and yet we're forced to represent them.The other problem is the forced mastery of English. Not everyone is good at English, yet they can be good at Pokemon. An example is Aqualouis - he has done well in tournaments and the OU ladder but can't express well why he thinks Excadrill is Uber. Should he be allowed to vote?