Can I get the SEXP for my third suspect account, Amarillo?
i wont give you the suspect EXP for obvious reasons, but you were 5-14 in the battles where you actually used latios, and 13-17 in your 30 battles overall on this account after abandoning it because you lost to white sands aka stathakis about 10 times in a row
i'm sure you knew all of this though, why did you think it would help your argument?
Can I then please have that totalled with my other two accounts and an indication of where that total then falls on the entire SEXP list and in regards to the cutoff point that you made
no, you cant
(which is skewed by all badged users anyway since they knew of it beforehand)?
no, they didn't. the only people who know what the actual hidden requirement is are doug and myself. i explained its gist very briefly to chaos just two days ago when he asked and he gave it his blessing, because he trusts me and has for five years.
Also, I hope that you're not suggesting that I logged onto differend IPs for each account in an effort to confuse you guys. Since you have so much information regarding when battles were, how long they were, etc. you should see that I was logging on and off between accounts almost instantaneously. I could care less about what IP each account is on.
your indifference actually destroys your argument though because doug and i would love to care about every account that has logged on to the suspect ladder, but on shoddy battle it is impossible to verify accounts that are tied to different IP addresses.
It's a good idea though, almost as good as having the judge who I have not had any personal conflict with be unable to read my paragraph.
haha yeah, i definitely bribed aeolus into pretending he was busy with real life issues so that i could once again wield the mighty Jumpman16 Blade of Bias unchecked, you totally just ousted me 5kr
talk about suggestions. (oh, and for the gamefaqs members of our viewing audience, the above is indeed...wait for it...sarcasm! please dont make another 10+ page about me and my bias and how this is the demise of smogon on your forums and then delete it when you realize how utterly wrong you were)
Please don't make things up. I believe that I used Shaymin-S in over 50% of my battles during the testing period. Here is one of the two teams that featured it:
[team]
the only one who has complete suspect battle info on the skymin test is doug, i went on the word of our staff members who watched you play the skymin test and volunteered this info in private unprompted. given your ridiculous vote on deoxys-s, it would have been irresponsible of me to not check into your actual participation in the Suspect Test process I invented, coordinate and oversee, wouldn't it?
so when I asked doug in december for the complete battle info on latias so i could start formulating the hidden requirement, it did not really surprise me that you didn't even once use latias, on your way to making the upper requirement in an effort you probably thought indicated you're actually qualified to weigh in on a suspect, at least to me. i don't think pasting some team where you allegedly did once use a suspect sometime is helping you though
I'm sorry, I missed the part in the in the voting requirements where it stated that "past actions" affect your likelihood of receiving voting approval.
If you're going to approve votes on this basis, why are we even voting?
only they're not really past actions if you keep repeating them. you allegedly barely used skymin, you didn't use latias once, and when you used latios, your performance was incredibly mediocre. doug and chaos both agree that this is one of many valid variables in an objective barometer of one's experience with the suspect. maybe when you're done being angry about me dishing out what you're so boldly and literally asking for you can compose yourself and hop on the manaphy ladder and actually figure out how to use a suspect for once
So if I would have said that Latios is OU because a lure Exploder can OHKO as it switches in and if everyone else had said it as well, it would have been good reasoning?
this is a nice strawman and all but a "no?" answer to this question doesn't change anything
Way to skew the voting results, disallowing voters who don't agree with the majority and making the margin of decision appear larger than it truly is. We can only hope that in a vote such as this one, with a few voters being on the edge, that it doesn't affect the outcome.
even if this were true, how would you possibly know which way i skewed the votes? you could have saved up both some time and stated your frustration with Jumpman being able to say whatever he wants about the submissions because they're PMed
Why is it so critical that the suspect be used? I used it until I had an indication of its strength. It was dead weight half of the time for me. Facing it in battle over and over made it clear what it was capable of.
What study was done to correlate rate of use with knowledge of the suspect's capabilities and reach the SEXP cutoff? Furthermore, how was it determined that merely using the suspect was enough? Why is it that playing against it bears no weighting? Why not require using at least 25 different Pokemon during the suspect test in an effort to find more counters? This can give you just as good of an idea of what the suspect's power.
first, admitting that you deemed Latios "dead weight half of the time" should kind of end this right here, since no one who voted ou or uber was silly enough to have stated this, let alone anyone who posted about latios on the forums. if a pokemon that was voted uber on the strength of the offensive characteristic virtually by itself appeared to be dead weight, then maybe that is indication more that the team it's on should be refined than indication of the suspect itself being dead weight. not that i or anyone else is surprised that you weren't willing or could not figure out how to use latios, given your refusal to use latias even once and your assumed satisfaction in making the upper requirement, as if that's at all the mark of a responsible suspect test participant.
second, i already addressed your main point before even getting to your original post:
about 15 other separate variables that went into my creation of the Suspect EXP Formula i spoke about with doug for over 40 minutes on the phone, after spending at least 10 hours formulating it by myself. (read: good luck guessing the hidden "requirement", guys.)
so your head is in the right place, and that's respectable. however, you should immediately realize (if you use that head), that you must have done really, really shitty to finish last out of everyone who made the lower requirement, since "how many times did player use x suspect" is one of about 15 other objective variables that indicate you aren't nearly as suited to determine the tiering of a suspect as you think you are.
you literally do not know what you're talking about, 5kr, because the hidden requirement is hidden for many reasons. one of whose validity you are confirming now by your continued straw-grasping. the only thing you can maintain is that this requirement was constructed to personally keep you out, which is fine and all, but you are now directing that at two other admins in chaos and Doug since they agree with and understand the work i put into creating the formula. or hey, maybe they just don't like you either. not that it would actually make a difference
Finally, I would imagine that someone who carries the job of determining adequate suspect usage and sound voting reasoning would have 10x more experience than the most experienced suspect battler. However our system is just the opposite. We have two people (I would say battlers but this isn't the case) who have little experience beyond watching battles and playing in the Battle Tower deciding how much experience is enough.
and i would imagine that, as with any intriguing and difficult question with which a professor's students are asked to agree or disagree, while making sure to address clearly and keenly the criteria that support their argument in the manner the professor has instructed them for the entire semester, "the right answer" isn't as much the point as is how the student arrived at that answer.
i don't really expect you to understand all that at this point, but oh well.
Why do you place so much emphasis on using the suspect and have the ability to approve voters when you, yourself, refuse to engage in YOUR suspect process (let alone a single D/P metagame since Shoddy's inception)? Where did you and Aeolus gather an infinite knowledge on the metagame that enables you to decide whether or not others are fit for voting?
i wasnt aware that you knew of my alternate accounts and when i actually play, 5kr. what if i told you i've played you seventeen times in the last nine months on four different accounts, and only lost three of those battles? would that make a difference?
what if i told you that i have a winning percentage of over 85% alltime on shoddy? would you assume that i am exactly 18-3 (one of the least amounts of battles possible for "over 85%")? would you even believe me?
would it matter? why?
I can't believe that the person who not only heavily pushes using the suspect but also approves voters has no experience with the suspect metagame. How does this even begin to make sense?
aside from the fact that i've already plainly stated that your "heavily pushes" is completely baseless given the number of variables in the hidden requirement, i'll make it simple for you to understand why your concern is a little short-sighted.
what if gouki, an upper requirement voter for this test and generally respected member of our community, tallied the votes on latios? after all, gouki had no problem reaching the upper limit, and, more importantly, had an extremely high Suspect EXP ranking.
he voted uber. under your assumption that experience in a given suspect test metagame is required to be able to determine "adequate suspect usage and sound voting reasoning", gouki is much, much more qualified than i to tally submissions.
if he had, how do you think he would perceived the 50 or so submissions? do you think he would be more inclined to find issue with the submissions that state why the would-be voters feel that latios is OU, or less inclined? no inclination? why?
and of those submission that leaned uber...would he be more inclined to agree with these than those that did not? less? no inclination? why?
do you know what i think about latios?
do you know why you don't know what I think about latios?
So which is it Jumpman, are you either unfit to judge who should be allowed to vote or is suspect experience really not that important (this seems to be the only explanation as to why you are the one who approves votes)?
there's an incredible amount of irony inherent here, where an individual who has posted the most ridiculous stance on competitive pokemon (which is the reason this is such an issue in the first place) has the gall to question the individual who has likely expounded the most effort towards the betterment of that same competitive pokemon, but i wont dwell on that too much. what i will state is that i'm pretty sure i could have applied for special permission to...myself, and voted on latios. i didn't do that though, because as i stated almost a year ago in my wobbufett thread and alluded to above, my efforts are better spent on Policy Review matters and the Suspect Test Process. besides the fact that, as i just showed with the Gouki example, i feel i am a prime candidate to be able to sort through people's reasoning on competitive pokemon since I don't battle that much, i'm pretty sure nobody actually elected me the king of the Suspect Test Process, and that's because i kind of invented it.
so you may want to ask everyone else you deem so much more suited for this "position" why they don't seem to care as much as I do. don't you think it's telling that "someone who doesn't even battle" continues to pour so much effort into this, more effort than anyone else, when he could be battling or God knows doing something else?
