Bold Voting and Rating/Deviation requirements—A happy medium?

[Syberia]

I already conceded that 5KR's vote had nothing whatsoever to do with competitive battling. But the Deo-E neuters offense votes back in the early days of testing definitely did originate from a competitive standpoint. If someone meets the voting criteria, they should be allowed to vote if their argument has something to do with competitive battling, which those votes that you threw out clearly did.

IMO, if you're going to use bold voting to judge peoples' arguments, they should be counted if they're not "totally" off base like 5KR's was. That is, I guess, my main concern. If the only purpose is to throw out totally dumb arguments like the one discussed in this thread, that's fine.

 

[Cathy]

Although I disagree with the voting process entirely, I don't think my opinion on that matters; the following point is worth considering however.

The biggest problem with the current system is that if there are 30 voters and the vote is 16 votes to ban, that results in a ban, even though there is a massive amount of disagreement. Since a ban is a serious thing, a simple 50% + 1 majority is not good enough to show an agreement on it. Not being banned is the default position, and it requires a compelling reason to deviate from that position; 50% + 1 is insufficiently compelling.

You might want to consider a 2/3 majority being required to ban.

 

[Jumpman16]

Besides the fact that the 2/3 would flip-flop now with every suspect after Skymin being consider uber and therefore default banned (and I am sure you realize this so I won't be pedantic for no reason), you raise an interesting point. That may be too high, though, and 2/3 is probably just as arbitrary as 50/50 (by no fault of your own, you are merely making a suggestion). Stage 3 would be interesting, with our given tags of OU or uber given to every pokemon to aid us in determining if they are still OU or uber respectively when all together...I wonder what kind of majority would be best there, if any. What does everyone else think?

I already conceded that 5KR's vote had nothing whatsoever to do with competitive battling. But the Deo-E neuters offense votes back in the early days of testing definitely did originate from a competitive standpoint. If someone meets the voting criteria, they should be allowed to vote if their argument has something to do with competitive battling, which those votes that you threw out clearly did.

"Those votes were shitty." You're kind of testing my patience, Syberia, since I really don't care what you guys think of how I tallied votes four months ago if you don't even bother to suggest a viable solution. "Something to do with competitive pokemon?" Do you realize how vague that is? 99% of the votes I tallied had "something to do with competitive pokemon", as I can only remember one post that echoed the "all deoxys are uber" sentiment and I even think he posted something else, not that even indulging this off-topic stuff is the point of this thread. 5KR's is the most extreme case I've seen in any vote, bold voting or Rating/CRE bold voting.

IMO, if you're going to use bold voting to judge peoples' arguments, they should be counted if they're not "totally" off base like 5KR's was. That is, I guess, my main concern. If the only purpose is to throw out totally dumb arguments like the one discussed in this thread, that's fine.

We're very likely not going the route of bold voting again, as I posted a few hours ago. Feel free to suggest something that would improve the Rating/Deviation vote process for once, please.

 

[Bologo]

Besides the fact that the 2/3 would flip-flop now with every suspect after Skymin being consider uber and therefore default banned

I have one little objection to this:

I'd say that if the suspect is uber or OU while it's being tested, an incredibly close vote should always go in favour of being unbanned/staying unbanned.

Let's imagine for a second that the vote for Lati@s goes 55% Uber and 45% OU. There's no way that should be default banned. When 45% of the voters felt that the suspect was viable in OU, that is a huge chunk of the voters, and IMO, that means that it needs more testing, which it will, of course, receive in stage 2.

 

[Jumpman16]

You mean stage 3 but yeah. I actually don't know how much I like a 2/3 majority or anything similar, after having thought about it. This would apply nicely if we had actually tiered all the Suspects correctly initially, which we obviously certainly didn't and is why were are testing them all now. The fact that we are now reconsidering how uber Lati@s really is should be indication enough that we may not have tiered it correctly at the beginning of DP, and having to reach a 2/3 majority implies that every Suspect was correctly tiered.

This was largely unavoidable, of course, since we had to place everything somewhere at the start of DP for the purposes of competitive battle, but that doesn't mean 2/3 of people should have to feel that Latios or Latias are OU. With enough people voting, hopefully without any bias, even if the vote is 46-44 in favor of OU a Suspect should likely be given a Stage 2 OU tag. The same problem with people voting with bias is present even if the voting goes 61-29, so that's a moot point if we're not going to bother throwing out votes where the voter decided to showcase no competitive intelligence.

 

[X-Act]

The real problem with this voting thing, after I have thought about it for a while, is that, as Hipmonlee said, we do not have a clear definition of what is uber. This definition will be important also for the BL/UU test that seems to be going to start shortly, so I think it would be a good idea to put it in place.

Specifically, different people use different 'definitions' of what is uber to support their arguments. If a person thinks that uber means 'makes the metagame boring', then he'll vote for a Pokemon to be uber if he thinks that the metagame with that Pokemon is more boring. If another person thinks that uber means 'reduces skill in the game', then he'll vote for the same Pokemon as OU if it did not reduce the skill in the game. If another one thinks that uber means 'needs almost an entire team to be built with countering it in mind', then he'll vote again differently according to his mentality.

If a definition is put in place, then not only can we force people to vote according to that definition, but also reject votes more objectively if people do not do so.

 

[Aeolus]

Filtering votes is simply not an option. We can educate people on our philosophy, we can teach them the definition of an uber, and we can require that they attain a certain level of proficiency in the suspect test.

What we cannot, and must not, do is adopt the attitude that the opinions do not matter of those voters who do not interpret things the same way as the person tallying votes. It introduces an inherent unfairness in the process and gains us nothing in return.

All should note that the rating/deviation requirements are put into place for two reasons:

1) To ensure that voters actually participate in the test a sufficient amount (measured by deviation)
2) To ensure that voters are themselves talented players who understand how the game is played... therefore earning more weight for their opinion. (measured by rating)

Not many people fulfill both requirements, and those that do have certainly proven that they possess both the capacity and interest to cast an informed vote... and they earned the right to do it on whatever grounds they think proper.

 

[X-Act]

Interestingly, we now have 244 eligible accounts that can vote for Shaymin-S with the new 1655/65 limits. And actually very few of them have a deviation over 60.

Something must have happened to pique these persons' interest in this vote, as, even with the old 1650/60 limits, we would have had a lot of eligible voters as well.

 

[RBG]

Well, this test was only one ladder and normal laddering made people eligible to vote. Which explains why more people than last time had more than one alt eligible.

 

[Syberia]

I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with RB Golbat's observation. Is there any way to look at statistics from the other two votes and analyze how many people would have been eligible if we had only used standard ladder? That might give you your answer.

Also, it's much easier to get a lower deviation when you only have to do it on one ladder. That way, every single match you play counts, so you're not splitting up your time between two different ladders.

 

[Taylor]

I believe I played very few matches with my 'morning glory' nickname on the ladder this month. I was suprised greatly to see I how I somehow qualified as an eligible participant. With that in mind, I wasn't too suprised with the large amount of voters currently eligible.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I have brought up this way of looking at the problem in other threads too, but here is my major cause of concern:

-The reason we make bans is because we believe it will create a better game.

I believe this is at the heart of the issue. We ban/unban to try and make a better game, and "Uber" is a list of things we believe to take away from the game.

In other words, "reducing centralization," or "reducing luck" or "putting a premium on skill," or any of the many arguments we are constantly debating on are not the ultimate reason we make bans. None of these things are an end in itself, but rather are objects we believe that by obtaining will give us a better game. To put this in a sentance format,

It is not: "We ban garchomp because it's overcentralizing."

It is: "Garchomp is overcentralizing, and banning it would make a better game."

In other words the ultimate goal is to "create a better game," not ban due to centralization.

The consequence of this is that "create a better game" is not an objective goal and can only be achieved by value judgements. This is why we cannot make a "definition of uber" in objective terms, nor can we ban things on statistics alone (ie. you can't measure what "a better game" is).

However, because of this I believe that the current voting system is indeed the best, since it is an acknowledgement that "better game" is based on the opinions of individuals.


The fact is that most of us agree to a great degree on what makes a better game. In this Policy Review, I would bet that there is even more general agreement. Looking at threads like the NFE thread and we can see that there are places where there is almost universal agreement. In general, many of us believe in less centralization, a greater pool of strategies, less luck, more skill.

However what I am getting at is that because "better game" is based on value judgements, when someone disagrees that does not make him "wrong." It just makes him different. Even if we are all smarter than him, have better experience than him, and can explain our reasons better than him, if he continues to disagree he is still not "wrong," just different.

In other words if we disagree with him and want things done our way, the way we achieve that should not be by completely throwing out his opinion. It should just be by overwhelming him in the vote.

What I am saying is that any definition of "a better game," is valid based on the individual and I see no reason why it should not be reflected in the vote. If affects of centralization are as important as we believe they are, than more people will vote based on that. If 5K Runner's reasoning is as irrevelent as we believe, than there will be naturally less people who vote based on that reasoning.

In other words, I don't see the point in judging people's reasonings. A ranking system like the one we have now can be said to be not for judging reasons but just making sure the players play enough to weigh in on the subject.

ps-- first post in policy review! :D

 

[Tangerine]

Snip

This is quite a dangerous justification you're trying to make there - not to mention it's not quite true.

The rules aren't there to "make a better game", per say. The rules are there to make competitive play competitive.

Part of competitive play isn't to change the rules "because it would make the game better". What makes competitive play competitive is that we have rules and boundaries, and we do everything within those rules and boundaries to perform our best.

We are not trying to create "a better game". We are, creating rules, that will promote a competitive metagame. This means that this is and should not be a "preference" issue, but a justification issue.

The most competitive game is quite likely not the opinions of individuals. Of course, "we work with what we have" (and considering I was never for letting people just vote on the issue but rather have people argue it out in an "innocent until proven guilty" fashion). The idea within the voting scheme is that people are aware of the intentions behind the changes in the rules (to create the most competitive ruleset, not "what they like better").

This is why I believe that we should be judging the reasons - although I doubt anyone would be willing to go through that arduous task at this point.

This is quite possibly the biggest reason why I believe that we should never ever put things up as suspects to let people's "preferences" judge because it introduces unneeded subjectivity. The only thing we should be testing is if something is "broken" - which can actually be solved by this preference issue (I think this is broken, I think this is not broken, blah blah). What we SHOULDN'T be doing is taking into consideration things that are obviously not broken (SR) and putting it up there.

In the end, the voting scheme is a way to bypass they greyline between what is uber and what is not uber. That was my impression of the voting scheme and I wonder if I should be irate that it's turning into "hey do you like apples better than oranges" nonsense. The only purpose of the current voting scheme as far as I am concerned is to give us a workaround while we don't have solid definition of what is uber or not. This isn't a preference issue, so stop treating it like it.

 

[Chou Toshio]

*snip*

The rules aren't there to "make a better game", per say. The rules are there to make competitive play competitive.

*snip*

You have failed to address the main point of my post.

All you have done is set a different goal by replacing "better game" with "competitive game." That just amounts to a re-wording.

The thing is that both "more competitive" or "better" are equally normative.

I can say, "More competitive is an environment with less centralization, less luck and more skill."

5K runner can say "More competitive is an environment that prepares us for the Official tournaments."

Neither of these statements can be said to be wrong, just different. We are putting different value on different things. We are making normative decisions, value judgements. Either way the decision is subjective.

You can't define these by numbers, only by opinions. Either way you end up having to ask the players what they think, and either way their reason for their decision cannot be labled "wrong."

I have no idea why so many of our members use phrases like "unnecessary subjectivity" or "more objective." There's no such thing as degrees of objectivity in making a decision. There is subjective, there is objective, and ultimately decisions are made by people.

You try to make the process a lot more complicated, confusing, and mysterious than it has to be.

The reason there is a "grey-line" between what is uber and what is not is not because of a discrepancy of subjectivity v. objectivity. The decision is subjective, 100% so. You can use data to try and sway people's opinions, but the fact is that whenever you make a normative decision, a value judgement, the ultimate thing is the opinions themselves. Facts affect decisions, they don't make decisions.

It is because the decision is subjective, therefore different based on opinion, that we have a "grey-line."

If we were talking about something that could be defined objectively, there would be no "grey."

 

[Hipmonlee]

We can make some objective statements about our ideal ruleset without it being a 100% objective decision. Things like "it should be determined without consideration of the rules of Nintendo's tournaments" which is objective but still leaves subjectivity. You can describe this as being less subjective.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

First, Better does not necessarily mean "more competitive". I was picking on your wording because I felt that using the word "better" and people mindlessly agreeing to it isn't the best plan here.

Neither of these statements can be said to be wrong, just different. We are putting different value on different things. We are making normative decisions, value judgements. Either way the decision is subjective.

You can't define these by numbers, only by opinions. Either way you end up having to ask the players what they think, and either way their reason for their decision cannot be labled "wrong."

Sorry, I was assuming you were familiar with the philosophy behind Smogon so I didn't expect you to make statements that completely undermine it so.

Let's see

The "OU metagame" is the result of a search for a balanced game, where player skill, teambuilding skill, and a certain amount of luck combine to execute victory. The "OU metagame" is in no ways perfect, but it should be pointed out that 99% of multiplayer games are often plagued by imbalance and the resulting "tiers", and it is fortunate that Pokémon's detailed depth, combined with the intelligent minds of its players, working to prevent various abuses, is capable of producing a diverse and enjoyable arena.

This is the OU Metagame, and this is what, you as a member of Smogon, should be familiar with and acknowledge. This is what we're working for, these are the "values" we are working with.

The values we are considering are there - "balance" (aka nothing is broken), and a combination of player skill (imperfect data management) + teambuilding skill (accumulated data management) + a certain amount of luck (luck factors "built in"). These are the values. What we "prefer" is already set - we're just drawing the lines, which is exactly why we are "voting" because no one could agree on a solid definition so we are letting the competent masses literally vote and "average out" to compensate for it.

You do realize this entire situation was brought about not just because "people wanted a better metagame", but because something was accused of unbalancing the metagame. Sure, these are "subjective" reasons, but they were convincinig enough that we actually bothered to create the system at hand. There is little room for preference on other "values", but only preference within the values that are already set.

You try to make the process a lot more complicated, confusing, and mysterious than it has to be.

How so?

The reason there is a "grey-line" between what is uber and what is not is not because of a discrepancy of subjectivity v. objectivity. The decision is subjective, 100% so. It is because the decision is subjective, therefore different based on opinion, that we have a "grey-line."

If we were talking about something that could be defined objectively, there would be no "grey."

I'm quite sure you're not quite understanding what I had to say, nor what people had said before.

We have what we are aiming for. These are not negotiable. We want balance in a game of information management. The only grey line is "how much is too much", which is what the voting is for. Voting is NOT for preferences, or "subjectivity" in other matters (hi Stealth Rock). This is why we are voting. Yes, the line we end up drawing is "subjective", but they fall under what we are testing. This is precisely why we only put things up for voting when there is a convincing reason why it should be tested, not because "we might like it better".

 

[Chou Toshio]

Let me say now that in writing this I am not trying to call anyone wrong or stupid or whatever, just putting out my thoughts that I think some might consider of value.

@Hip-- Putting in pre-requisites like that is still a value judgement someone had to make, therefore a subjective decision.

@SG-- I never said "better" = "more competitive." When I said all you did was re-word, what I meant was that "better" and "more competitive" are both normative, and thus still subject to my point about non-objective definitions.

I'm also quite aware of the smogon philosophy and that statement of OU. Note though that it says the "result," and is by no means an objective definition of OU. In fact, it's just description, not definition.

When I say you're making things overly complicated, I'm saying that no one understands where the line is if you say "grey-line" or "unnecessarily subjective." A definition is objectively defined, or subjectively decided on.

I am saying it is that simple.

We have what we are aiming for. These are not negotiable. We want balance in a game of information management. The only grey line is "how much is too much", which is what the voting is for. Voting is NOT for preferences, or "subjectivity" in other matters (hi Stealth Rock). This is why we are voting. Yes, the line we end up drawing is "subjective", but they fall under what we are testing. This is precisely why we only put things up for voting when there is a convincing reason why it should be tested, not because "we might like it better".

This statement is very, very vague.

Ok, so:

-1st you admit that line is subjective

-2nd you say voting is not for preferences

Come again? If there is no objective place to draw the line, and we have to draw it on voting, than it is pretty obvious that it is based on preferences. "How much is too much" = preference decision. People can also have a host of personal reasons why "Deoxys-S is too fast but Aerodactyle isn't."

If we Bold Vote and have an arbiter decide if an argument does or does not make sense, that does not make the process any more objective.

Also what is wrong with "We might like it better." We play the game because it is fun. We made it more competitive because most people think that a game with more skill and competitiveness is more fun than playing the ingame way.

It boggles my mind that people cannot accept reasons unless "they sound smart," especially when we're talking about a game.

Unnecessarily Complex =/= Smart

Rather, that is the stupidity of smart people. It is like we are trying to make a rule set for the game more to satisfy our egos than satisfy the players.


If we bold vote and ask for eloquent reasons that would actually give the smart and eloquent players more control of the rules. As a player who fits that description, (hate calling myself smart, but we're all here discussing this in Policy Review for a reason, and I did get my votes counted by both you and Jump in the last Bold Voting) I personally would benefit from that because it is likely my vote would then count more. For my own interests, I actually would welcome Bold Voting.

However I am not the only one who plays this game, and in acting Policy I am not supposed to be looking out for my own good. The players who play the game are not all smart and eloquent and well spoken-- but they play the game. Also some of them might be some of the very best players, as the ability to write well is probably correlated with, but unrelated to one's battle skill. Panamaxis' thread on Donphan is overall ridiculous-- doesn't change the fact that as much as I tried I could not touch his score on the leader board.


My point is that objectively speaking, I cannot think of a reason why a smart and eloquent player's opinion is more valuable than a player who has lesser language/reasoning skills.

 

[Hipmonlee]

@Hip-- Putting in pre-requisites like that is still a value judgement someone had to make, therefore a subjective decision.

Well if you are willing to go that far, then you'd have to agree that any mention of objectivity is pointless. We are all subjects, nothing we say or do can be objective. But as far as objectivity has any meaning whatsoever, it is objective for us to make rule changes that fit with the philosophy of smogon.

5K runner can say "More competitive is an environment that prepares us for the Official tournaments."

Except the word competitive has a meaning and I cant see how preparation for official tournaments fits within that meaning. I'd say that competitive is a very poor word for this situation, but it is pretty clear its intended use in this context means the competitiveness of the metagame we are creating should be seen as an end in itself, and should not defer to official nintendo tournaments in terms of rules.

The point isnt that the philosophy of smogon wasnt subjective, but that it is already decided. We have to accept it, or change it, but we shouldnt vote in a manner that is contrary to its intent.

But ultimately I agree with your point that we should be looking to defeat voting against the philosophy of smogon with weight of numbers rather than ignoring votes.

Have a nice day.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Well if you are willing to go that far, then you'd have to agree that any mention of objectivity is pointless. We are all subjects, nothing we say or do can be objective. But as far as objectivity has any meaning whatsoever, it is objective for us to make rule changes that fit with the philosophy of smogon.

Not totally pointless. I mean we can say a lot of objective things about rankings, luck and centralization. Knowing about those things affects people's opinions. There is data, but the decisions we make, those are subjective. I never meant to say that objective facts should not be considered when making a subjective decision, just that the decision itself is subjective.

The point isnt that the philosophy of smogon wasnt subjective, but that it is already decided. We have to accept it, or change it, but we shouldnt vote in a manner that is contrary to its intent.

Alright, that's true. I was just thinking aloud, and I just happen to believe that there is no philosophy that is set in stone. You are 100% correct here though, and I was admittedly walking around that point without addressing it.

 

[Tangerine]

...good job for completely missing the point.

I'm not talking about the actual voting process. I'm talking about what is actually put up for voting.

The actual voting process is a subjective process created to get around a grey line that we cannot objectively define.

For example, let's take Garchomp. Garchomp was voted overwhelmingly Uber, this is because a majority of users saw Garchomp as such an overwhelming force that it should have been banned. Meaning that for them, they have crossed this line. On the other hand, for other users, they didn't feel as if Garchomp was uber, because they didn't cross the line.

Where this line exactly is in an objective fashion cannot be determined without actual rigorous long term testing which the efforts are literally wasted when applied to Pokemon.

Consider the argument that it is "overcentralizing". My context of what was uber was that if a Pokemon continually increases in usage for a long period of time, it should be uber. But where is the line? is a .5% increase in each month too much? is a 5% increase in each month too much? is a 5 month increase enough? this is where the subjectivity comes in. This is in fact the exact reason we have put forth the voting system, because it lets us get around the fact that we don't have solid analysis behind the numbers to back up if something is uber or not.

What we actually put up for voting are things that are not based simply on "preference" but have solid arguments on why we should test them. meaning that we shouldn't test sheerly because of "preference" - meaning "oh we might like a metagame without SR better". This is where solid reasoning, and the ability to look at things objectively comes in. This is why my opinion on the matter is rather firm. I don't see a reason to test something that isn't broken.

What is wrong with "we like it better" is that it does not necessarily lead to the most competitive metagame. Why don't you go lurk around Stark more and see why "we like it better" can go horribly wrong?

I don't see what part of this is "unnecessarily complex", and I actually find it laughable that you are finding it unnecessarily complex, and even more laughable you're taking these shots without understanding what is going on.

My point is that objectively speaking, I cannot think of a reason why a smart and eloquent player's opinion is more valuable than a player who has lesser language/reasoning skills.

Because if you can't put forth your reasoning in words, you're completely useless. I don't care if you are the best Pokemon player in existence, if you cannot translate your skills and instincts into words then you are completely useless within this process.

Also, you're here because you are considered "relatively smart" compared to Stark.... take that to mean whatever you want.

EDIT: I think I should also address your logic here.

You're arguing that just because all analysis of data is subjective by definition, therefore we shouldn't try to look at things objectively, and by doing so we are "unnecessarily complicating the process". Think about that for a moment, and think about the schools of Economics. Did we over complicate Smith and Mill by producing Economical Theory based on them?

 

[Chou Toshio]

@SG-- I'll just say this:

Because if you can't put forth your reasoning in words, you're completely useless. I don't care if you are the best Pokemon player in existence, if you cannot translate your skills and instincts into words then you are completely useless within this process.

Really? Well, I cannot agree, and I kind of do care. I can't see how skill should matter less to a competitive community than being able to talk good. I'd be up for listening to reasons you have why the opinions of those players are worthless, but I know now I won't agree.

Also, you're here because you are considered "relatively smart" compared to Stark.... take that to mean whatever you want.

I did say "I hate calling myself smart." For the most part I don't think it appropriate to comment on my intelligence, even more so on that of any of the other members. I was just trying to illustrate the point. Excuse me for not being able to think of a better way to do it.

edit:

You're arguing that just because all analysis of data is subjective by definition, therefore we shouldn't try to look at things objectively, and by doing so we are "unnecessarily complicating the process". Think about that for a moment, and think about the schools of Economics. Did we over complicate Smith and Mill by producing Economical Theory based on them?

Analyzing data is not subjective. Forming opinions about it and making decisions on it is.

Producing a theory, and writing theory is not at all the same as making policy for a game we all play.

edit 2: If you can't tell by how skimpy this reply is, I'm saying "I really got nothing more to say on the topic. Consider what I'm saying if you want. If you don't want to, that's fine too."

 

[Aeolus]

I'm very impressed with ChouToshio's posts. Great example of a user that I've never heard of who has worthy contributions. This is why I love this community. He got at the heart at why the voting process is what it is... and I don't see that changing any time soon unless someone has a better process (god we've tried... hours of my life have been spent on that!).


All that said... I'm not sure what the point of this topic is anymore. I almost wish it had died with my last post.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Hm, well from the looks of it Skymin's vote is the closest vote we've had and with such a close vote I am not sure if we should have made it as "easy" to vote.

In example I had a deviation of 23.24 because I wanted to give a proper vote to it. Some people admitted to only spending a minimal amount of time testing and playing and it is possible those people might be not as familiar with the metagame shifts and how something is played throughout a large chunk of the time something is tested. So basically someone who only had a couple hours of experience on the ladder could have their vote weigh equal to mine, when I spent a lot of time on the ladder to make sure that my vote would be well thought out and objective. I think people really need to spend more time testing something before they can really give a more solid opinion and not just bum rush the ladder at the last minute.

One thing I would like to propose is lowering the deviation requirements to vote. Not just back to 60, but to 55 or even 50 because it would show you had put forth a significant amount of effort to try to give a solid vote and opinion.

 

[X-Act]

The way the glicko2 system works would make your suggestion impractical, MythTrainerInfinity.

The reason why the deviation was increased from 60 to 65 was exactly because it was too difficult to get to 60 in a brand new ladder after a month. However, what I failed to realise for this test was that only the Standard ladder was going to be taken into account. Since the Standard ladder has much more players and has been around for much longer, the deviation of most of the players was already around 55 at least! I talked to Aeolus about this yesterday and he told me that they had already considered this thing, so I didn't mention anything more about it.

 

[Chou Toshio]

If we really wanted to be more strict about making sure that people participate more, there are certainly ways to re-organize the system.

For instance

-We could ask that everyone who wishes to participate start a new account at the beginning of the test period, and have that account "registered" in a thread at Stark like we usually do with verifying the accepted accounts. This would mean everyone starts on the same page as far as deviation/rank are concerned.

-We could then set multiple check points for those participating. Because everyone started with the same time with a blank account, we could set multiple universal requirement points.

Example:

Test Period Star: Everyone makes a new account, and registers as a potential voter.

1 week check point: Must achieve a rank of 1550 with a deviation of 100

2 week check point: Must achieve a rank of 1580 with a deviation of 80

3 week check point: Must achieve a rank of 1610 with a deviation of 70

1 month deadline: Must achieve a rank of 1655 with a deviation of 65

Obviously you have to pass each check point to make a final vote.



I made up numbers completely arbitrarily but you get the idea. This way we would KNOW people participated, know how many participants there are from the start. We also have a certain commitment to voting/testing itself because it is likely that players would have to (some degree) would end up having to ignore their regular laddering accounts in order to get play time in on their test ones, especially if they have to get the rank for both suspect and standard ladder to the requirements. I am aware this would take a lot more organizational commitment from our staff, and I'd sympathize with that.