Using simple majorities for tiering votes

[Jumpman16]

The "True Metagame" here is a joke. All that happens when we test a Pokemon on its own in the Suspect Test ladder is that we get a highly specialized ladder where the Suspect is used more than Kyogre in Ubers battles (and that's a shitload), and where packing 2, 3 counters to the suspect is not only biable but effective and probably encouraged. Now, I have acknowledged earlier that I have seen the merit of this Suspect Test metagame, and it does give us good and useful information, but it is nowhere near what it's like for the suspect to compete in the standard metagame.

actually he misused my application of "true metagame":

Smogon's plan with regard to handling "suspects" (pokemon currently in the uber tier that may not be accurately tiered ther or vice versa) is outlined in my Order of Operations thread. Either method will indeed take several iterations, but we would be closer to the "true metagame" by handling the pokemon one suspect at a time in the metagame we feel is most close to the "true" one, which is a metagame without any current suspects.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Blammo, problem solved. Now we dont have to make a pedantic and ignorantly arbitrary change to the voting process that we agreed on and have been using for 6 months!

It isnt arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if the number 66% wasnt agreed by most people including yourself to be a better number than 50%.

Also our method has evolved throughout this process, there is no reason to continue to use 50% if we feel that 66% is a better number.

I also think you are jumping the gun in assuming this change has to be made immediately. If we do decide that sticking with the status quo is important, this is a change that can be made in future, or at any time we feel is appropriate. It doesnt mean we shouldnt consider the possibility now.

Also the revisiting of suspects in stage 3 may not solve the problem. Like, if Latios is found to be uber in stage three with 51% of the vote, will it be removed from uber? Considering the first time we tested it was found to be ou with something like 80%.

Which I guess brings up another question, how will the stage 3 test be handled?

I mean like, it is easy to say that stage 3 will solve these problems but if we dont know exactly how the voting or testing will be handled I am not sure we can assume that it will. Is there any reson stage 3 shouldnt use a supermajority.

Have a nice day.

 

[Aeolus]

I only read the OP... and while there is nothing in it that I really disagree with... I think it is important to consider the nature of the environment in which the decision is being made. For the particular tests that we are running, a 2/3 consensus is going to be incredibly rare in the absence of any special influencing factors. The tests are run because there is intense disagreement (with educated people on both sides). Requiring a super majority hamstrings the community from making changes... we require more flexibility than such a system would allow.

The other part of this is that I'm not willing to say "tough shit" to a 60% majority that votes a Pokemon Uber. Gasp all you want, but it is important for us to make decisions that our users find acceptable (oh no! he's a populist! run! calm down, i'm a realist, not a populist.). There is a huge public relations component to these tests... and this does not jive well in that department.

In the past, the director of the Smogon Tour made all tiering decisions unilaterally. We adopted this process to make those decisions more democratic... I don't want to diminsh the progress we've made in that department. I totally understand, and even initially agreed, with the idea of requiring a super majority... but its practical drawbacks outweigh its philosophical advantages for me.

On another interesting note... the two-thirds people failed to receive a super majority in the poll. :)

 

[X-Act]

(not to mention that there were people who voted that shouldn't have had access to this forum but had access erroneously - this has been fixed by the undersigned.)

 

[Theorymon]

I know this thread is old, but I feel that the disccussion in #is justifies a bump.

While 2 / 3 sounds sort of arbitrary, the fact that banning a Pokémon is such a serious decsion leads me to think that 51 / 49 is just too weak. In partciular, the Garchomp vote was very close, with 44 voting it Uber, and 41 voting it OU. That is only a difference of 3 votes! I really feel that deciding that a Pokémon is Uber over only 3 votes is a poor way to decide its tiering.

 

[Tangerine]

I agree with Theorymon - I think banning Garchomp on a 44/41 is a rather bold move, on something so indecisive. I think we should be a bit more conservative about this, especially in Stage 3.

 

[haunter]

I know this thread is old, but I feel that the disccussion in #is justifies a bump.

While 2 / 3 sounds sort of arbitrary, the fact that banning a Pokémon is such a serious decsion leads me to think that 51 / 49 is just too weak. In partciular, the Garchomp vote was very close, with 44 voting it Uber, and 41 voting it OU. That is only a difference of 3 votes! I really feel that deciding that a Pokémon is Uber over only 3 votes is a poor way to decide its tiering.

It has always been my opinion that the majority of people who play the game should make the decisions concerning the game, without anything more than slight (and on objective grounds) interference. It's better to have 49% of people disappointed with an outcome than 66%.

This is my point, exactly.

So, what exactly are you suggesting? Maybe banning Garchomp with only 3 votes of difference may not seem fair, but wouldn't moving it to OU seem even more unfair, considering that the majority of the voters voted it Uber?

 

[lilyhollow]

This is my point, exactly.

So, what exactly are you suggesting? Maybe banning Garchomp with only 3 votes of difference may not seem fair, but wouldn't moving it to OU seem even more unfair, considering that the majority of the voters voted it Uber?

no, because the decision can be very easily reversed in the future compared to a ban. I'd say more about "preserving the integrity of the game for the future" but that stuff has probably already been stated in this thread and in IRC several times and I have to leave.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Nothing is being moved to OU at this point, all that is happening is there will be further stage three testing eliminating everything voted uber until everything is voted OU.

tbh I am as anti garchomp as anyone, but I wouldnt mind it sticking around for another round of testing. I think the idea would be that since it has been voted uber by a simple majority it would only need to be voted uber by simple majority once again to be made uber. Though honestly I dont think it would matter, I really cant imagine it passing a simple majority however we test it..

Have a nice day.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Will there be a time where we could re-test Garchomp after all the stages are done?

I would really have liked to see or at least know people's reasoning behind their votes. Even if it was just a sentence it would shed some insight on why some people thought the way they did. A pre-vote discussion might help clear up why some people feel they need to vote that way or another way. I mean if someone felt something was Uber while you thought it was OU... wouldn't you want to know why and want to discuss it? In a discussion some people may change their minds and vote another way than if they kept their thoughts to themselves. Maybe there needs to be a week long discussion or something before the vote for people who are qualified for Suspect testing. Sure you do have the thread in Stark, but I get the feeling that a fresh, exclusive to the Suspect voters thread may help clearify some things and be beneficial to the vote. Since we all battle at different times and against different teams it would be nice to hear how the Suspect test went for someone with a different perspective. It might not be a solution for the majority issue, but at least people would feel more confident voting a certain way (and get them more involved here at Smogon).

Seeing as how widely accepted Smogon's tier lists are... I think we need to at least justify the way we vote, otherwise it kind of brings us back to how the tiers were treated in third gen where a pokémon went to a tier because someone felt like it.

Just my two cents :x