-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The UU Senate
- Thread starter JabbaTheGriffin
- Start date
- Status
I'll definitely consider upping the number depending on how many quality applications I receive
Yeah, no re-election of incumbent senators until the debt is under control!...wait that's a different senate.
I actually think this will work fine, the community members who will end up being chosen will take it seriously enough that they'll be willing to step down if they don't have time to stay current and fulfill their duties well. It's pretty much stated that they are required to maintain a high rating, to engage with the community, and to continue to submit paragraphs. I'm also sure there is a sith lord behind the scenes who will force-strangle anyone who neglects their duties.
This is coming from the standpoint of someone who isn't really interested in becoming a senator, though. I suppose I might feel differently if I ended up being the 6th choice or something and would never ever get a chance... Still I imagine that even if there isn't a policy laid down for "re-elections" that there will be points where a change is warranted.
I don't think we need to go too far in modelling this after a democratic political system because I have orders of magnitude more faith in our community members than I do in politicians.
@Pocket, it is the commitment. I'm honestly at a point in my life where I need to be playing less pokemon, not more. Otherwise, I would love to give it a shot.
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.
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.
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.
Secondly, obviously the apparent bias against those that struggle with English is an unfortunate downside of requiring voter explanations. But that's a casualty we're going to have to deal with if we want the most in-depth process as possible. I apologize in advance to anyone this screws over.
Jabba please let me say that I trust you to do what is best for the tier, and if you say IRC is important then I believe you (especially since I've never logged on to IRC at all). I did after all have some productive discussions on Pokemon Online, in real time.
That said, very selfishly, I'm still a bit disappointed. Last generation I got good at the game too late to participate in any votes, while I started playing this generation too late to vote in the first round. Now it seems I won't ever be able to vote anymore ... or in other words, no badges. In the past, all I had to do was climb the ladder and reach the benchmark to win the suspect voter badge. I may not be good enough at playing and teambuilding to win tournaments, but climbing the ladder is something I'm familiar with and something I can do. Now I have to do something more if I want the badge ...
Oh well. You UU senators better do a good job, or I'll start logging on to IRC and strangle each and every one of you :)
That said, very selfishly, I'm still a bit disappointed. Last generation I got good at the game too late to participate in any votes, while I started playing this generation too late to vote in the first round. Now it seems I won't ever be able to vote anymore ... or in other words, no badges. In the past, all I had to do was climb the ladder and reach the benchmark to win the suspect voter badge. I may not be good enough at playing and teambuilding to win tournaments, but climbing the ladder is something I'm familiar with and something I can do. Now I have to do something more if I want the badge ...
Oh well. You UU senators better do a good job, or I'll start logging on to IRC and strangle each and every one of you :)
Seems like a good enough decision, as previous posters have mentioned, 5 seems like too few people to get a balanced view of the meta. My only real gripe with the system is that at least under the previous system of having to get a certain rating it was an objective method of choosing a voter pool and seems a little fairer than this more subjective method of being picked by the powers that be.
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.
Fair point heysup, I'm not expecting jabba to make a bad judgement or anything, it just seems a shame that the rest of us will not have any realistic chance of directly influencing the uu metagame. At least with ladder ratings it gave you something aspire to and certainly for me it made me try and improve my game as I was keen to have my say on the uu meta. But i expect its probably for the best.
@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?
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?
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?
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.
i fail to see how they will be representative of the community. the senate members are not being voted on by the community, nor are they forced to adhere to the communities opinion. the fact that there is no replacing them just reinforces this, as there is really no incentive to listen to opposing arguments and make decisions based on what the community wants rather than what a group of 5, supposedly, "top-tier" uu players want.
this is just my initial opinion, so if i'm missing something important on the whole "representative" issue, please tell me. i'm not necessarily opposed to this system as of now, i just want to make sure that in whichever system we go through with, the communities voice is heard rather than the voice of a select group of people.
this is just my initial opinion, so if i'm missing something important on the whole "representative" issue, please tell me. i'm not necessarily opposed to this system as of now, i just want to make sure that in whichever system we go through with, the communities voice is heard rather than the voice of a select group of people.
I think i will be intresting to see how this works and if it speeds up the suspect test then thats great the theory behind it works if it does or not is a different questiong as if the "5"'s choices are against the majority of the UU playbase then clearly somthings wrong and somthing will have to change
Banedon and CaptainBlue do bring up valid points. Yes, more commitment and involvement in the community are required by the UU senators as opposed to the former UU suspect voters, but I'm skeptical if discussions in irc or at dragonspiral thread would alter the senator's initial decision.
For instance, the past few days Heysup and Banedon were arguing about Frosslass / Snow Cloak / Snow Cloak + Snow Warning. They argue each other's point very well, but ultimately they don't reach an agreement. If Banedon was a senator, he would still vote to ban Froslass / Snow Cloak / etc, despite the valid counter-arguments provided by Heysup, for instance.
I am pretty sure IRC discussions wont lead to an agreement, but rather a standstill, until somebody changes the topic (unless discussions at #genvuu would be different from #Pokemon)
The fear that these senators would simply carry through with their own personal agenda is legitimate, and must be addressed. Yes, their decisions are well-informed one, but undoubtedly biased, and when it comes to controversial issues, such as Froslass / weather abilities / etc, this individual bias is going to be the major deciding factor to most of the ban decisions.
For instance, the past few days Heysup and Banedon were arguing about Frosslass / Snow Cloak / Snow Cloak + Snow Warning. They argue each other's point very well, but ultimately they don't reach an agreement. If Banedon was a senator, he would still vote to ban Froslass / Snow Cloak / etc, despite the valid counter-arguments provided by Heysup, for instance.
I am pretty sure IRC discussions wont lead to an agreement, but rather a standstill, until somebody changes the topic (unless discussions at #genvuu would be different from #Pokemon)
The fear that these senators would simply carry through with their own personal agenda is legitimate, and must be addressed. Yes, their decisions are well-informed one, but undoubtedly biased, and when it comes to controversial issues, such as Froslass / weather abilities / etc, this individual bias is going to be the major deciding factor to most of the ban decisions.
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.
Now if the senators were elected and had a set term, then it would force them to choose what the community wants if they want to keep their power. But in a system where they are appointed and not at risk of losing their job because of their choices, it give them no reason to really take others opinions into account. People say that this system will focus more on discussion, but when you have no incentive to change your view, even if very few people agree with you, then what is the point?
The goal of any system we use should be to make the game what the community wants it to be. But if a few people make all the decisions, and don't have to be held responsible for their choices, all that we will end up with is the game that the top 5 like, not that which the community as a whole does.
As you said, subjectivity is not bad itself. It is in fact very important as it is the basis for argument. But when it comes to deciding who makes decisions we need to be as objective as possible or risk a biased result.
I'd say the large voter pool of the suspect testing process did a very good job at minimizing individual bias, and reflected accurately the overall community's viewpoint on suspect issues.
Honestly, I don't think the suspect testing process has produced any unreasonable ban thus far. The only mishap I could identify is the recent vote on baton pass. However, I believe the results would have been much different if there was a clarification on the OP stating to only ban BP if you truly think the move Baton Pass is broken, not the strategy it's associated with (Smash Passing / BP Chains).
Honestly, I don't think the suspect testing process has produced any unreasonable ban thus far. The only mishap I could identify is the recent vote on baton pass. However, I believe the results would have been much different if there was a clarification on the OP stating to only ban BP if you truly think the move Baton Pass is broken, not the strategy it's associated with (Smash Passing / BP Chains).
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.
The only difference you proposed is the moderation. But really, what does that do? Sure, if no one but the 5 people want something it could be prevented from being put up to a vote. But on any matter than is even slightly controversial, it really won't make a difference. It will still just end up with the 5 people choosing what they want over what the community says.
And as for losing their jobs, the proposed system can't take someones job away because of their vote. And to be honest, that is good, because that would mean one person could just say what the results should be and take your job if you disagree. However, the combination of that and the fact that the community has no say in who gets appointed means that as long as they stay active, they can vote however they want without consequence, even if the majority disagrees.
To be completely honest, I don't see why we are changing the system at all. Sure, you will always have people who don't like the results, but at least the process let all qualified people get a say. If our goal is to make a game the community wants, should we let the community make the decisions?
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.
Aside from that issue, I'm really excited to see us adding another layer of executive decision to this process, as voting has become a little unorganized as of late; SmashPass and the more recent Baton Pass being blamed for Espeon's crimes, for example. I've always enjoyed the UU metagame and I want to see it do nothing but grow. I will be expecting a lot from our future senate members, whoever they might be. Please don't let us down.
- Status