A New Direction for Other Metagames

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
Wait wait, you can search the forum with those tags?

... can that information be put somewhere really highly visible, because I've been here well over a year and had no idea. I'd just thought those tags were to make them a little more visible when manually looking through the thread list.

---

I'm personally not a fan of splitting the forums because, yeah, it splits the community, and I don't think it would help people new to OMs find the things they care about. Might even make it harder, if they somehow find the "regular" OMs sub-forum when trying to find the thread for whatever has won OMotM, or something like that. It'd be nice to have ladder threads more readily findable or something, but I'm not sure there's that much payoff to splitting into ladder/non-ladder or whatever.
Added it to the top of the Index. Hopefully that's visible enough!
 

Uselesscrab

suffering whiteout conditions
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
As long as this thread has become somewhat active again, I'm going to post about an important issue that I believe has resulted in a significant reduction of the quality of threads across the OM forum: the lack of deleted posts.

Anyone who has ever posted in an OU suspect thread knows that there is an incredibly high standard of quality that a post needs to meet to avoid being erased. We purport to have similar standards ourselves, but in practice, a lot of stupidity goes unchecked; in general, in my experience, the moderators choose to delete posts primarily when they result in excessive conflict, but innumerable uninformed, useless, and flat-out factually incorrect posts are allowed to survive. This frequently disrupts actually important conversation, most notably in threads like the BH suspect thread, since 5 people stop what they're doing to make corrections. Here are some recent examples, solely within the BH arena (this phenomenon has persisted for as long as I can remember):

"I've recently found out that Sturdy Shedinja can force Endless Battles" - interrupted a legitimately interesting discussion about the viability of Taunt, which ceased immediately after, and necessitated two posts asking how. No response from the creator of the post, who succeeded in derailing something important.

"Thanks to Balanced Hackmons, not only can magikarp fear sweep, but at full health" - This is something like the seventh time this exact same unviable meme strategy has been touted as "overpowered," and every time it leads to another elaborate explanation of why the unviable strategy is unviable that gets 5 likes.

"I don't know if this will fit in, but I think there is a clear problem with putting sturdy on shedninja" - results in an 11-post discussion that includes mentions of Quick Claw Final Gambit Blissey and Quick Attack Shedinja and completely derails the previous discussion of sleep and -ates, legitimate issues that need to be addressed to improve the centralized BH metagame.

"Swadloon" and then "ray-mega (s->A-). this mon is easily nocked out by refrigirate users such as black kyuerem [among other things]" - these result in a long discussion of Kyurem-Black coverage that kills the thread for a month

We also see this in threads that explicitly mention that bad posts will be deleted. For instance:
Cheek Pouch Aggron-Mega

Anyway, I could probably find more but I've been working on this for way too long. My point is that we need to be much more harsh about deleting posts, especially uninformed ones that come in the midst of elaborate, intelligent discussion. This would help with an overall problem we have with a general lack of intellectual discussion.
 
Last edited:

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
Agreeing that we are a bit too lax, not only in terms of allowing low quality posts, but also in the (lack of) infractions that we hand out. I don't think we need to be OU level of strictness but we can certainly try to improve on that aspect. Thanks for bringing this up.
 
As long as this thread has become somewhat active again, I'm going to post about an important issue that I believe has resulted in a significant reduction of the quality of threads across the OM forum: the lack of deleted posts.

Anyone who has ever posted in an OU suspect thread knows that there is an incredibly high standard of quality that a post needs to meet to avoid being erased. We purport to have similar standards ourselves, but in practice, a lot of stupidity goes unchecked; in general, in my experience, the moderators choose to delete posts primarily when they result in excessive conflict, but innumerable uninformed, useless, and flat-out factually incorrect posts are allowed to survive. This frequently disrupts actually important conversation, most notably in threads like the BH suspect thread, since 5 people stop what they're doing to make corrections. Here are some recent examples, solely within the BH arena (this phenomenon has persisted for as long as I can remember):

"I've recently found out that Sturdy Shedinja can force Endless Battles" - interrupted a legitimately interesting discussion about the viability of Taunt, which ceased immediately after, and necessitated two posts asking how. No response from the creator of the post, who succeeded in derailing something important.

"Thanks to Balanced Hackmons, not only can magikarp fear sweep, but at full health" - This is something like the seventh time this exact same unviable meme strategy has been touted as "overpowered," and every time it leads to another elaborate explanation of why the unviable strategy is unviable that gets 5 likes.

"I don't know if this will fit in, but I think there is a clear problem with putting sturdy on shedninja" - results in a 11-post discussion that includes mentions of Quick Claw Final Gambit Blissey and Quick Attack Shedinja and completely derails the previous discussion of sleep and -ates, legitimate issues that need to be addressed to improve the centralized BH metagame.

"Swadloon" and then "ray-mega (s->A-). this mon is easily nocked out by refrigirate users such as black kyuerem [among other things]" - these result in a long discussion of Kyurem-Black coverage that kills the thread for a month

We also see this in threads that explicitly mention that bad posts will be deleted. For instance:
Cheek Pouch Aggron-Mega

Anyway, I could probably find more but I've been working on this for way too long. My point is that we need to be much more harsh about deleting posts, especially uninformed ones that come in the midst of elaborate, intelligent discussion. This would help with an overall problem we have with a general lack of intellectual discussion.
I personally believe this reflects a bigger issue of lack of a moderator team. Most of the tiering subforums, especially the one most comparable to us in terms of sheer post count, OU, has a dedicated mod team of something like 4-6 people watching over the forum, whereas we just have our TLs. While they're certainly qualified mods, there's just no physical way TI and EG can catch every shitpost going through the forum. Maybe a larger mod team could remedy this?
 
Maybe we don't need to pressure the leaders for mods, I assume they're looking for them anyway. I assume the worst case scenarios come from the most popular om permaladders- AG and BH. Now, the current leaders of these two metas are E4 Flint and Zangooser, both of whom are trustworthy users and greenlit by the leaders to lead said metas. So, I'd suggest giving them project mods so they can delete uninformed posts in their metagame threads and keep discussion clean. You wouldn't really have to worry about their ability to handle discipline because they won't be infracting, just deleting posts and telling the users why. Other leaders like Klang and Kingslayer2779 could also be given project mods as they're also greenlit permaladder leaders, but those threads really aren't all that active sadly.

Anyway, just a suggestion, cheers. [also, this should only happen if they are willing to do it ofc, haven't actually talked to any bar flint just now]

editing to the response below because it's more of an extension of this post:
I suggested this because if anyone already fit the requirement of a full fledged forum mod in om already, wouldn't they already be modded? Assuming that there are no real candidates atm, giving the tier leaders for the permaladders I mentioned (who have already been greenlit to run the metagame; keep in mind that neither is the actual "creator" of the meta, but people chosen by the om leaders) project mods helps with the current issue while userbase steps up their game and gives them a real candidate.
 
Last edited:

Uselesscrab

suffering whiteout conditions
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I don't like any of these ideas that are like "take everyone that fits in a given category and give them mod!" On my phone so I can't give an in-depth analysis but I'm much more in line with a regular old selection process as Peef suggested - if the leadership wants to expand at all - rather than something like what josh (I know his post was also a meme though) or imas proposed (especially the latter as I think that's just arbitrary and bizarre, no offense).
 
In OU and the other tier-related forums, it's much easier to spot uninformed / factually incorrect arguments because those mods are masters at their tier. In my experience, I'm good at a few OMs but for something like AG or BH I can't really be the arbiter on what constitutes a true statement vs. a well-argued but factually bankrupt statement, which is why I give most people the benefit of the doubt and focus on the personal attacks / pure shitposts / stupid one-liners.

One could argue, "But Eevee even you have to realize Imposter Light Ball Pikachu is bad!" *Shrug* This is Other Metas after all. Stranger things have happened.

I'm all for more mods. It's something TI and I have been discussing since literally we became co-leaders. We just can't seem to agree on the same candidates, or then when we do, they go inactive or quit.
 
I somewhat agree with Peef Rimgar that we can't view every single thread/post, but we definitely try. In light of that, imas has been appointed project moderator of the Other Metagames forum!
I know it's not my place to appoint badgeholders, but what's the exact line between a Project moderator and someone with the moderator badge? I assumed smaller subforums would get the earlier distinction but the main OMs forum should probably get the latter, right?
 

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
I know it's not my place to appoint badgeholders, but what's the exact line between a Project moderator and someone with the moderator badge? I assumed smaller subforums would get the earlier distinction but the main OMs forum should probably get the latter, right?
There isn't a clear line, different people look at it differently. I personally view it as a trial moderator. In any case, they have the same powers except full mods being able to warn people. If things go well, it should lead to full mods.
 
well since this topic is apparently the place for the improvement discussion, I was thinken of bringing this one thing up again;

Could it be possible to get more ladder variation?
I mean, really, even tho the current perma ladders are solid and give a good taste of the OMs and we have the OMtM which is really great, it still feels like some metagames that have shown great potential to continue forward and specially the ones that get nominated a lot could do with atleast longer ladder time if they cannot get perma ladder
It could help to spice things up a bit.

Like idk, seasonal/featured ladders or something for those all time favorites that still cant get perma ladder?

Cause one month is a short time and I feel that some potential new players that just notice the OMtM and then see it gone might get disappointment feelings when the next OMtM they see is nothing alike or as fun. Or the case where some players might get the "this again?" feel.
It could help with giving new fresher and different meta games a chance to pop in OMtM more.

(as exsample you could look back at inheritance and how it was super active as OMtM and how it attracted people who were not interested in OMs a lot at first, I recall also has shown this effect)
 

Rumplestiltskin

I will rain lels all over you and you will drown in them
I have noticed that there seems to be a dilemma people have during OMotM voting periods:
  • To vote for an old favourite meta that already has been OMotM
  • To vote for an interesting looking new one
Which is I think what CactusCacti was talking about a little here. People want to play old OMotM metagames they liked, but at the same time there are previously untested interesting looking OM's that people would rather have, which is where the "this again?" and "but this has already been playable here" sentiments come from.

To solve this I suggest having a different project and thus another monthly ladder for metagames that already have been OMotM. I know that the cooldown period for nominating previous OMotM's is in place to alleviate this, but it just isn't enough at this point.
 

Funbot28

Porque yo soy tu veneno
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Well it has been decided that OMs like Sketchmons and Mix and Mega will get their own perma ladders when gen 7 comes out, however I do agree that the issue for OMoTM can be present if popular metas keep getting recycled every month, leaving no space for new metas to get a chance when SuMo comes out.
 

wishes

blame it on u
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
OM C&C Update:

- STABmons and AAA analyses are discontinued: link
- bacon/Shiba are mods
- BH/AG has shifted to the focus of OM C&C
- there are currently no plans to add a new metagame

the second one was never really posted here but it feels important since they lead a branch of OMs now. the other three are big ones in terms of change in the OM community, although indirectly.

:)
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
well since this topic is apparently the place for the improvement discussion, I was thinken of bringing this one thing up again;

Could it be possible to get more ladder variation?
I mean, really, even tho the current perma ladders are solid and give a good taste of the OMs and we have the OMtM which is really great, it still feels like some metagames that have shown great potential to continue forward and specially the ones that get nominated a lot could do with atleast longer ladder time if they cannot get perma ladder
It could help to spice things up a bit.

Like idk, seasonal/featured ladders or something for those all time favorites that still cant get perma ladder?

Cause one month is a short time and I feel that some potential new players that just notice the OMtM and then see it gone might get disappointment feelings when the next OMtM they see is nothing alike or as fun. Or the case where some players might get the "this again?" feel.
It could help with giving new fresher and different meta games a chance to pop in OMtM more.

(as exsample you could look back at inheritance and how it was super active as OMtM and how it attracted people who were not interested in OMs a lot at first, I recall also has shown this effect)
I can say with certainty that the biggest problem with higher end OM players not participating in OMotMs is that they don't last long enough and tend to be unstable for a long time. These players prefer to play the permaladders, whatever they are and even if they have more interest in the non-permas, over the OMotMs because of this lack of stability. True stability doesn't usually exist until late in the period, and really, creativity and solid teambuilding comes after a prolonged period of stability in the metagame. This is just as much of a symptom of a lack of playtesting prior to these metas becoming OMotM meaning they require several bans as it is the lack of time.

Having more popular OMotMs or LCotMs go into a rotating ladder cycle could help fix this issue. Regardless, the popularity for these ladders would be a major contributor in giving them extended ladder period. One of the main reasons I am concerned now is that we are apparently planning on using MnM and Sketchmons as permaladders in Sun and Moon when neither meta, especially the latter, is stable. Both metas were still in the process of stabilizing their bans at the end of the last OMotMs and Sketchmons especially still had issues that needed to be addressed, and now the metagame without diggersby is completely unexplored. For metagames that aren't getting a permaladder, even the greatest metagames bear no resemblance to stability even by the end of the month, deadening the interest in these metagames to begin with.

Realistically, I can understand not wanting to "clog the server" so to speak but several ladders have been added since the inception of X and Y and I don't see why we couldn't add two 3-month ladders of the most popular OMotM/LCotMs or some similar system, especially when sumo comes out.

More importantly, there are some ladders that won't get permas due to being parallel with other metas but would fit very well in an extended OMotM system due to their popularity. Primarily, I'm referring to Inheritance, which, according to the admins, is parallel with BH (I still don't understand this comparison at all). Inheritance was right up there with MnM and Sketchmons in popularity, with the other two receiving permaladders. Even if this Inheritance vs. BH comparison holds up or is valid, running such a popular meta in a cycle longer than a month every 6 months is probably more than appropriate given its extreme popularity.

I'm all for more mods. It's something TI and I have been discussing since literally we became co-leaders. We just can't seem to agree on the same candidates, or then when we do, they go inactive or quit.
For a completely different topic, this is my biggest pet peeve with management on any online forum. I know there are plenty of candidates for mod and I don't pretend to understand what you and TI think about when discussing candidates, but I have a feeling you guys are overthinking it to some extent. When looking to appoint moderators, you don't need to look for every quality being perfect, as if those candidates have to fit every qualification to the bill and be the perfect user in order to be considered for anything. The biggest part about being a mod of a forum like this, in which the moderators cannot keep up with the content, is maintaining a level head and being able to take criticism, including understanding you will make mistakes and trying to learn from them. No matter what you do or who you employ, that person will make mistakes in the early going. People with the ability to do this, and keep a level-head in these situations, are the candidates for moderator. They don't need to be elite battlers, constant contributors, or staff helpers if you will; they need to be smart people who can keep a level head, maintain activity, and monitor forums you can't.

I can say with some certainty that if you made Zangooser a moderator, there would be absolutely no drawbacks for the OM forums or you as a staff group, and he brings an understanding of AG and several other tiers you guys haven't delved into yet, from what I see (sorry if I'm wrong here). I'm not really sure what your knock on him is now. There are several other similar candidates who you KNOW would absolutely do the job every way you want it done. Baconbagon and Peef Rimgar immediately come to mind especially as I know them both personally, but I'm sure there are other candidates like E4 Flint that would preform similarly well.

I'm not trying to tell you and TI how to do your jobs, and like I said, I do not pretend to understand what you guys are actually doing, and whether or not you're thinking the same things I am or are concerned about details I'm missing. I'm just approaching the subject because I feel like it needs to be said and could potentially save you much more headache.

As long as this thread has become somewhat active again, I'm going to post about an important issue that I believe has resulted in a significant reduction of the quality of threads across the OM forum: the lack of deleted posts.

Anyone who has ever posted in an OU suspect thread knows that there is an incredibly high standard of quality that a post needs to meet to avoid being erased. We purport to have similar standards ourselves, but in practice, a lot of stupidity goes unchecked; in general, in my experience, the moderators choose to delete posts primarily when they result in excessive conflict, but innumerable uninformed, useless, and flat-out factually incorrect posts are allowed to survive. This frequently disrupts actually important conversation, most notably in threads like the BH suspect thread, since 5 people stop what they're doing to make corrections. Here are some recent examples, solely within the BH arena (this phenomenon has persisted for as long as I can remember):

"I've recently found out that Sturdy Shedinja can force Endless Battles" - interrupted a legitimately interesting discussion about the viability of Taunt, which ceased immediately after, and necessitated two posts asking how. No response from the creator of the post, who succeeded in derailing something important.

"Thanks to Balanced Hackmons, not only can magikarp fear sweep, but at full health" - This is something like the seventh time this exact same unviable meme strategy has been touted as "overpowered," and every time it leads to another elaborate explanation of why the unviable strategy is unviable that gets 5 likes.

"I don't know if this will fit in, but I think there is a clear problem with putting sturdy on shedninja" - results in an 11-post discussion that includes mentions of Quick Claw Final Gambit Blissey and Quick Attack Shedinja and completely derails the previous discussion of sleep and -ates, legitimate issues that need to be addressed to improve the centralized BH metagame.

"Swadloon" and then "ray-mega (s->A-). this mon is easily nocked out by refrigirate users such as black kyuerem [among other things]" - these result in a long discussion of Kyurem-Black coverage that kills the thread for a month

We also see this in threads that explicitly mention that bad posts will be deleted. For instance:
Cheek Pouch Aggron-Mega

Anyway, I could probably find more but I've been working on this for way too long. My point is that we need to be much more harsh about deleting posts, especially uninformed ones that come in the midst of elaborate, intelligent discussion. This would help with an overall problem we have with a general lack of intellectual discussion.
In my mind, not only are shitposts a problem, but one-liners as well, since many add little or nothing to the conversation and often require people to rehash their ideas repetitively. Even if something holds some relevance, one-liners are almost always going to qualify as shitposts in a competitive discussion, even if they appear to be useful in some way. Importantly, posts that are nothing but sets and a sentence are just as distracting.

I understand when moderators don't understand the tiers they are commenting on, but I don't think a 1-liner about imposter pikachu, or a single imposter pikachu set on a BH thread, should stay regardless of whether or not it's viable. If somebody has analysis as to why something is viable, let people address it. Most importantly, communication between the moderators and those who are leaders or know the tier very well can help filter these posts. If as a moderator, you are unsure of whether or not something qualifies as a bad post, ask tier leaders or highly respected tier players if they think it should remain or if it's a bad post that doesn't deserve the spot on the thread for the negative potential it creates. Conversely, if you are a tier leader or a highly respected player and you see a post you deem as unworthy to remain on the thread, why not message an admin about it and ask them to delete it? We can't go around assuming everybody is right, but some sort of communication could help this issue regardless.

Been a while since I dropped a post like this. feelsgoodman
 

sin(pi)

lucky n bad
(This probably doesn't strictly belong here but it's somewhat relevant and I don't use any other part of the forums)

One thing that's different about Smogon compared to the other forums that I've used is that there's no way to report a post. I don't know if that's possible to implement or not but I think it's a great way to help with the "shitposts" - the community tends to know when a post is something that should be deleted (and you guys shouldn't be expected to read every single post). Right now I don't want to PM a mod saying "hey this post is kinda bad" because I don't want to feel like I'm pestering/spamming them, and only messaging one mod might be ineffective if they're busy.
Perhaps setting up a thread/subforum with invisible posts would work (similar to how voting in official suspects is handled, or the OM submissions subforum)? That solves the problem of anonymity, while allowing any of the mods/whoever has access to those posts to handle it when they have time.
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
(This probably doesn't strictly belong here but it's somewhat relevant and I don't use any other part of the forums)

One thing that's different about Smogon compared to the other forums that I've used is that there's no way to report a post. I don't know if that's possible to implement or not but I think it's a great way to help with the "shitposts" - the community tends to know when a post is something that should be deleted (and you guys shouldn't be expected to read every single post). Right now I don't want to PM a mod saying "hey this post is kinda bad" because I don't want to feel like I'm pestering/spamming them, and only messaging one mod might be ineffective if they're busy.
Perhaps setting up a thread/subforum with invisible posts would work (similar to how voting in official suspects is handled, or the OM submissions subforum)? That solves the problem of anonymity, while allowing any of the mods/whoever has access to those posts to handle it when they have time.
I understand where you're coming from, but a report button is normally used strictly for site-rule breaking, such as porn, excessive flaming, or other rule breaks buried in threads where mods may not see them. Perhaps it could be used differently in OMs, but I generally don't see this system as something everybody uses to report posts they don't like, rather, just a few people are in communication with mods. Leaders and Project leaders should be involved, not everybody.

A subforum for this would just be...PMs, or even pm conversations between several people. I'm not jaded to the amount of PMs, etc. EG and TI get but having specific conversations, or hell, just making a discord/skype chat would be more than appropriate.
 
Recently I was looking through the OMOTM voting thread and I made a concerning observation. I went back through the OMOTM archive to see if this was a running trend or just a coincidence, and I found that this was not just something exclusive to this month: Metagames on the second page of the OMOTM voting thread receive substantially fewer votes on average than those on the first page.

Here's a graph demonstrating my findings:



And here's the data in a table if you'd prefer:



Here's the raw data in a very poorly formatted spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14eNmX1UJkV2Whx3h1AS8UpUbqA8FePt3RR8n2hrW9B4/edit?usp=sharing

Some notes:
  • This is every month of voting since the like-based voting system was implemented.
  • I took the data for June at about 6PM 31/5 AEST (about 6 hours before this post)
  • I did not discount invalid votes because I couldn't be bothered to go through and work out which ones were invalid.
As you can see, the metas on the first page of the voting thread received more votes than those on the second page for every month that this system has been in place except for the first one, September 2015. If this were just one month it could be considered a coincidence, but the fact that this trend repeats across 9 out of 10 months indicates to me that this is not a coincidence, and is rather a bias built into the voting system itself. Overall, metas on the first page of the voting thread average 65.7 votes, and those on the second page average 48.2 votes. In other words, metas on the second page receive an average of about 27% fewer votes than those on the first page. Only 1 meta has ever gotten OMOTM from the second page of the voting thread since the introduction of this voting system - Sketchmons in September 2015, the first month of the new system. Since then, every single OMOTM winner has been from the first page. Clearly, some voters can't be bothered to click on the second page of the thread, and this is skewing the votes in favour of metas that have the good fortune of having a name that comes early in the alphabet.

This is obviously a problem, but whats the solution? One answer is to reorder the metas each month; either by randomising the order or by alternating between alphabetical and reverse-alphabetical order. However, this is not an ideal solution. Randomising the order each month makes it difficult for people trying to find a specific meta to vote for, and the second method benefits metas that are around the middle of the alphabet, and thus end up near the end of the first page in both alphabetic and reverse-alphabetical order. Regardless, both of these solutions have the same issue; while they would cause the disparity to balance out over time, they still introduce bias on a month-by-month basis. A potentially close OMOTM voting race (like the one we're seeing this month between Got Talent and Enchanted Items) could potentially be decided by one of the metas having the misfortune of being placed on the second page of the thread, which is not a desirable outcome. Using a third-party voting system like Strawpoll isn't a good idea because it can be too easily manipulated. I think the ideal solution is to do something like what was done for the 2016 Smogon Awards - set up a separate site for voting that still has to be logged into with your Smogon account, in order to prevent people from gaming the system. This site ideally would present the metas to the voter in a random order, different for each voter, to minimise bias. This would also solve another issue in the OMOTM voting process - the site could hide voting scores from the voters, and thus prevent bandwagoning.

Some fun facts I found when I was collecting the data :0
  • The meta which received the all time fewest votes since the introduction of the new voting system was Team Movepools in November 2015, which got 4
  • On the other hand, the meta with the most votes in any month is this month's Got Talent, which as of this writing has 297 and counting. The previous record holder was Mix and Mega in February, with 204
  • After OMOTM voting started being advertised in the PS newsbox, the number of votes cast each month more than tripled
  • In total, more than 20,000 votes have been made since the implementation of the new voting system, which gives Other Metagames perhaps the best post count:like ratio of any user on the site
 
Other Metagames would be the most liked "user" if someone wasn't deleting his like count. Anyway.

Thank you for the data MAMP.

I'm afraid this is one of those unfortunate situations we're going to have to live with. However I have a few ideas. First, I can check with one of our Xenforo wizards to see if individual threads can be bumped from 25 posts/page to 50. The other option isn't pretty but unless we find a better solution we may consider capping nominations at 25/month. Figuring out which metagames count could be as simple as "first come, first serve," or a thread page count and general popularity metric to ensure only the "viable" metagames are included in the 25. Lastly, option three is to change nothing.

We'll put our top scientists to work and report back soon.
 
What about a cap on the amount of nominations per month (24 metas)? It could be an interesting process, first come first serve may actually switch up what kind of metas we get every month and could be a temporary solution till we find a way to get the perfect solution (the aforementioned site).Not a fan of reverse

I'm up in all ungodly hours so I could like switch up the time the nom thread is posted every month by 12 hours. Alternatively, if there's a way to randomly pick out 24 metas from the noms we do get, that'd be an even better solution. If you guys know of any sites that do this, let me know.

e- wtf how did eevee general ninja me
 
What's wrong with the suggestion to make another page with a form on it? One that requires you to have a smogon account to vote.
Nothing. As I mentioned before, that's the perfect solution. However, someone does need to code the site and I imagine it isn't easy. So, unless and until someone volunteers, we can't do that yet.

Also note that the smogon awards site was up once a year, this would need to be updated every month.

edit @below: rip
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top