Proposal RE: Council Member Expectations & Accountability

[Finchinator]

Posting this on behalf of myself

Members of tiering councils make decisions that impact entire playerbases. We all hold some stake in the metagames we frequent, but the councils determine their direction.

While there are mechanisms to check council power in place, it still is paramount that we have people in these positions that properly serve their playerbases. In an ideal world, council members are held accountable through community activity that shows their playerbases they are informed and invested. However, there is nothing currently in place forcing this to be the case. Smogon absolutely has a problem with councilmen (and perhaps other positions, but that's not for here) overstaying their welcome or lingering in position despite not being properly active per a recent discussion I had in the Old Generation Council chat.

There are not currently any formal requirements for members of tiering councils. They do not need to play tournaments, participate in discussion, or even get voting requirements in suspect tests in the tier. I do not think we need firm requirements as every tier has different circumstances, but I do think we should have better guidelines and behavior we encourage for councilmen.

In short, if you are on a tiering council, you should be encouraged to:

• Participate in suspect tests when possible
• Post in tiering discussions when possible
• Participate in tournaments (more loosely -- there are only limited slots and options, so this is harder to gauge)
• Generally be transparent about major decisions or opinions

If you do not do any of these over a period of time, you should be removed in favor of someone who will be qualified and capable of this.

I think all of the above should go without saying, but we have no way to enforce it right now and this leads to people remaining in positions they rightfully obtained well past the point they deserve to be in them. This goes for people on my council, people on Old Generation Councils, and probably people in other CG council spots too. Every position held by someone who is no longer fit or active is a position taken away from someone who is fit and active, too, which can compromise our tiering process and outcomes.

I do not think we need firm rules as to what people on councils absolutely must do, but I do think it should be made clearer what is expected over time regarding transparency and communication. I do think that failure to comply with this over a period of time should be used as means to remove people from councils, too. This involves leaders being proactive and having hard conversations with people they have good rapport with, but this should be part of the job of a leader after all! Council turnover is not always a bad thing and sometimes there are just more active or current options that represent communities better.

I hope this thread can be used to spark a discussion about tackling Smogon's problem with transparency, communication, and activity with some stagnant council members. I hope people can share ideas about what can be done to improve. I hope we can have some rough guidelines implemented if people view this as a concern, too.

 

[Stories]

There's really no way to go about this without feeling like you're pointing fingers but I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments here. To me many councils just feel like an extension of jerk groups where there's no expectation of creating resources, discussing the metagame, or even actively playing it. Obviously you can't really police this kind of thing because people have lives and bring different things to the table but there are many blatant cases of stagnant councils / council members and a lack of transparency from them for some formats. I hope something becomes of this proposal.

 

[BP]

While I still consider myself a bit green regarding Smogon politics, this is a step in the right direction. Regarding growing a metagame's popularity and overall loyal player base, I find that the issues highlighted in the OP are non-issues as everyone tends to be motivated and work towards the same goal. For metagames that already have these things, these issues are more common. These already large metagames' player base do not speak out often unless something egregious happens.

Finch's proposal is an excellent, albeit somewhat vague, starting point for ample participation/discussion. However, considering each council's varying workforce levels, I do not believe you can expect every council to fit under this umbrella. I know the concept of rotating councils but have not been a part of or implemented one myself. Thus, I cannot say if this is an avenue worth pursuing, but implementing a rotating council for metagames that struggle with the issues highlighted in the OP sounds like a band-aid for the problem.

 

[Star]

Enforcing activity guidelines is probably a good thing, although they’d likely need to be different for CG vs old gens.

One thing I had in mind for old gens is we have a pretty standardized tour reqs process and the expectation could be that people who don’t meet the reqs for the last 12 or 18 months or smth should be replaced.

CG is more active so maybe something like people who haven’t participated in two out of the last three suspects or smth like that.

Obviously this doesn’t have to be a completely hard rule bc there are circumstances that come up + maybe some ppl contribute a lot in internal/external discussions or what not but prob makes sense as a general guideline to implement going forward.

 

[Oatmon]

I've always been a fan of the idea that possession of a position of power on Smogon was entirely merit based, and you had to be good at the metagame you represent / coordinate to have a say in it. As a personal preference I usually like democracy more, but failing that, at least survival of the fittest in a fair way is cool. Unlike real life, in competitive games we can actually measure who is the best out of those who participate fairly, so everyone gets a chance to have their say provided that they are or get good enough.

---

Follwing this line of thought, I think that tournament participation, or possibly ladder participation with a good score in either are better metrics than talking on the forums, or voting on a suspect (unless you had to get requirements to vote).

Anyone can make a post on the forums, but it doesn't necessarily mean they understand the metagame they are posting on to the same degree or more than other members of the community. Similarly, anyone can vote if they are given the privilege without needing to meet suspect requirements outside of being on a council / some other position. So for this reason I think we should exclude activity requirements that do not require a person to demonstrate knowledge of the metagame they are being active in.

Spoiler

The system should be relaxed enough that the volunteers in these positions can still have a life outside of Smogon of course. We don't want them stressing about losing their position because they didn't have time for X tournament, or enough ladder games everyday to avoid ELO decay.

 

[sunny004]

I've always been a fan of the idea that possession of a position of power on Smogon was entirely merit based, and you had to be good at the metagame you represent / coordinate to have a say in it. As a personal preference I usually like democracy more, but failing that, at least survival of the fittest in a fair way is cool. Unlike real life, in competitive games we can actually measure who is the best out of those who participate fairly, so everyone gets a chance to have their say provided that they are or get good enough.

---

Follwing this line of thought, I think that tournament participation, or possibly ladder participation with a good score in either are better metrics than talking on the forums, or voting on a suspect (unless you had to get requirements to vote).

Anyone can make a post on the forums, but it doesn't necessarily mean they understand the metagame they are posting on to the same degree or more than other members of the community. Similarly, anyone can vote if they are given the privilege without needing to meet suspect requirements outside of being on a council / some other position. So for this reason I think we should exclude activity requirements that do not require a person to demonstrate knowledge of the metagame they are being active in.

Spoiler

The system should be relaxed enough that the volunteers in these positions can still have a life outside of Smogon of course. We don't want them stressing about losing their position because they didn't have time for X tournament, or enough ladder games everyday to avoid ELO decay.

Disclaimer: I have very little personal stakes in this debate. Do with that what you will.
TL;DR: Suspect test and forum discussion participation should not be ignored when determining and encouraging council members' activities.

I personally object to any council activity metric that ignores suspect test participation and/or forum discussion contributions.

A good council member, in my opinion, should have two qualities:
1) Skill / Competence in the metagame for which they are a council member. This skill should not remain stagnant with activity but should grow and evolve much like the metagame itself (I.e., demonstrate continued competence over time).
2) Actual, passionate contribution to the development of the metagame. This, unfortunately, is where a purely gameplay-focused proposal like Oatmon's (not trying to single them out; they were just the immediately preceding post) falls short.

Being good at a metagame and actually contributing to the development and health of said metagame are two very different things. I think Oatmon's overall sentiment is correct insofar as council members should demonstrate competence and skill in their respective metagames through objective means. However, ignoring the non-ladder / tourney work ultimately will not solve the inactivity problem. It will certainly increase the activity of council members who are exclusively active in the ladder / tournament parts of a metagame but will not encourage council members to participate in the actual development of the metagame itself. Like it or not, the forum discussions and suspect tests are where the sausage gets made, so to speak. I believe that any metric for council member activity should encourage these activities alongside active ladder+tournament play.

Finally, to echo the concerns above: I do not think that there should be rigid, hard-line metrics for activity for any of these participation aspects. A very easy starting baseline would be to at least post your thoughts and reasoning behind your vote (or non-vote, on the hopefully rare instances when you are unable to get reqs) for every suspect test that your metagame puts on. (Plus some minimum laddering/tourney participation, if so desired). I think they are infrequent enough for most metagames that this will not be a burdensome ask.

 

[pulsar512b]

going to follow the lead of not directly pointing fingers, but i do have concrete examples of these in mind

I think that this is a symptom of a general problem in Smogon (and other places too on the internet) where people who are some combination of too busy to (whether due to IRL or other commitments), unqualified/uncapable of, (e.g. tiering a tier you just don't play or are bad at), and bad at transparently performing the duties and actions of offices simply do not step down, sometimes hampering progress and action in a favorable direction. Maybe this is just the human inherent desire for power, but I believe if there was a norm where, to put it simply, if you are bad at a role you resign it (rather than having to be ousted, which is often a touchy process further exacerbated by personal relationships among leadership), this problem would basically be entirely nonexistent. Might be an ego thing too where people think resigning is an admission of being a bad person? there's no shame in realizing 'hey i can't do this anymore, calling it a day folks have a nice one' (I say this as someone who has repeatedly done this)


As far as what i think constitutes being good at a council member position specifically:
1) playing the tier
Obviously this depends on the details of the circuit, but i suspect something like a strong suggestion to play at least half of the circuit tours would be good. ladder requirements would also not be an awful idea - strengthening ladders (esp for old gens) would be a very positive outcome (and the effects would cascade beyond the few original players. if the best players are forced to be active, then it makes everyone else more interested in playing) and it pushes them to see another side than the tournament experience (that, remember tiering policy is supposed to accomodate/work towards) often.

2) giving a shit about the tier.
this has a lot of subcategories but we'll focus on three here:
a) participating in suspects & posting about your thoughts on them (when applicable)
cut and dry
b) building resources for the tier, and updating them frequently
Even if you don't believe updates are needed, at least talk and think about them and publicly address concerns? This might seem like a comically low bar but, well. It's not being met in at least one case. I wouldn't mind a recommendation that you have to participate in C&C in some way either, but would not argue for like, 'oh you must do 3 analyses a month' (esp considering the current state of some old gen C&C).
c) being active in discussions about the tier in public
I think being active and transparent about your thoughts on the tier and the current metagame is pretty important. This can come in a variety of forms and is thus hard to quantify, but things like participating in the public discord for the metagame or the metagame discussion thread or stuff llike the SV OU Office Hours program are fantastic examples of this. Being more of a public figure and interacting with more people in the community serves a variety of purposes. First, it makes the community have a closer relationship with the council, and helps break the sort of 'throne' they sit on. This makes them more approachable to raise concerns, for example. It also helps somewhat mitigate issues where the council can easily (as any small group of people can, and usually will) become a bit of an echo chamber.

3) transparency
I've touched on this earlier, but transparency is very important. If you can't be transparent about your actions as a council member, off you go.



I would also like there be a formal, clear process for removing members of councils and a group to accept (ideally, anonymous?) complaints about council members who (in community members' view) are not meeting one or more of these. To my knowledge, this doesn't really happen publicly (have i mentioned transparency enough), and there's not a very formal means of submitting complaints. I think this should be a smogon-wide group, personally, and it would also potentially help in reducing the amount personal relationships can interfere in the process. This group could also potentially help appoint replacements, but that's probably a job better suited for people more invested in the tier. Perhaps they could serve as an advisory board for that?

In summary what I would want:

A set of guidelines, with activity suggestions along the lines of participation in tournaments and ladder and in engaging with the tier in more indirect manners. In addition, a set of transparency guidelines for smogon council members is direly needed. Finally, a group of (hopefully) relatively impartial users that can handle and address complaints about particular council members.

 

[Kalalokki]

I would also like there be a formal, clear process for removing members of councils and a group to accept (ideally, anonymous?) complaints about council members who (in community members' view) are not meeting one or more of these. To my knowledge, this doesn't really happen publicly (have i mentioned transparency enough), and there's not a very formal means of submitting complaints. I think this should be a smogon-wide group, personally, and it would also potentially help in reducing the amount personal relationships can interfere in the process. This group could also potentially help appoint replacements, but that's probably a job better suited for people more invested in the tier. Perhaps they could serve as an advisory board for that?

https://www.smogon.com/forums/forums/senior-staff-requests.362/

I don't think you'll get a formal process for this, but if we aren't told we won't really know.

 

[zinnias]

pls stop trying to make council members play ladder games lol i just want them to be actual current players of the tier and speak about the tier every once and a while

 

[Jahkem]

I believe these guidelines are reasonable and fair. The only one I personally would like to see become a requirement would be the very first one listed by Finchinator:

• Participate in suspect tests when possible

This is the only guideline I believe should be enforced for all members of a tier’s council, or at the very least the tier leaders, to get reqs for suspect tests that are put up.

Outside of that, this is a huge step in the right direction for tiers all across PS.

 

[Django]

pls stop trying to make council members play ladder games lol i just want them to be actual current players of the tier and speak about the tier every once and a while

Why is expecting council members to occasionally play ladder games so unreasonable? Surely to make tiering decisions under a policy which caters "to both ladder players (the higher end of the ladder) and tournament players." you would need to play ladder once in a while? Doesn't seem onerous to me especially if there is a suspect test on

 

[zinnias]

Why is expecting council members to occasionally play ladder games so unreasonable? Surely to make tiering decisions under a policy which caters "to both ladder players (the higher end of the ladder) and tournament players." you would need to play ladder once in a while? Doesn't seem onerous to me especially if there is a suspect test on

There isn't a way to do it that isn't utterly ridiculous. Would it be a weekly/monthly quota of ladder games? Might as well just get them over with on Monday so people don't bother them about it. Would there be an Elo or GXE requirement for council members to keep their position? Elo and GXE isn't that important to show a good player lol. And we can even get into tiers like GSC with dead ladders that take minutes to find a game, aiya. In my eyes, I at least prefer that some people are saying that they want rigid requirements for council laddering because at least it's a proposal, "Occasionally play ladder games" is just leading to more of the same that we have right now. The most important thing that can come from this thread are ideas for actual rules that will be enforced. So far I agree with council members needing to post describing their side on each suspect and participating in the test (unless they have circumstances going on). I also agree that they should be playing circuit.

It's hard to say for sure how to tackle the issue of council activity, and that's because it's not even a council problem it's a smogon sitewide problem. Especially oldgens. When I originally pulled up to SM QC (which is the quality team that checks analyses) at the end of last year tryna write an analysis, there was only 1 person on it willing to give me the time of day. This is not the case anymore because new people were added to pick up after some members that originally contributed lost their interest and slowed down. And that's only SM, if we talk about ORAS or GSC then it's even more filled with people that probably forgot they were there and the onus on them is to resign due to lack of removals. THis is the same case with councils. Something that distinguishes councils from other areas on the site is how hard they are to get onto. This is because you need to wait for someone to manually remove themself from a coveted position, which isn't a common occurrence. Perhaps we can increase the size of councils to add prospective active councillors without needing to wait for someone to expire (voluntarily or not). Contrary to this, for smaller communities it isn't guaranteed that there are eligible players that are active that should be added to the council. I don't want this to lead to a drop in the knowledge quality of councillors, but maybe its inevitable.

First thing on the agenda, tiering leads have to go into those council chats and ask "Who wants to still be here and will you be able to back it up with activity in the near future? Are you going to be playing tours and talking to people around the community?" At the very least, you want your council members to be able to reply when they are contacted regarding the tier they are on the council for, and to reaffirm their continued interest in the tier. And I'm biased towards oldgens in my understanding, which are gens where there is reduced "council activities" like suspect tests, so an acceptable GSC council member will be a very different thing than an acceptable SV council member.

To summarise:
-I disagree with ladder requirements for council members. I would prefer that they play in circuit and play in suspects if they are able to make a detailed post about any votes they do. Subjectively I would like them to integrate with the wider community too, talking in discords and occasionally making a forum post, but this isn't something I believe healthy to enforce, I guess.
-This is a sitewide cultural issue with smogon positions and this will only change with rules that act to enforce the change
-In the short term, add more council members. After some period of time from activity-based removals being implemented, it'll be noticeable who should stay or not
-The expectation will look different for each generation and tier, so nothing that blankets from 1-9 and Ubers-LC exactly the same please :)

 

[Stories]

You don't need set requirements for "playing the game" but when a council member or even tier leader is blatantly not doing that then some kind of action should be taken

 

[BigFatMantis]

We need term limits for council members. Unironically though just do regular evaluations of council members, procedurally. Some tiers actually do that and it helps keep them accountable

 

[Stories]

issue is these things are always case-by-case but I can't help but feel like there's a smogon-wide issue of people not stepping down from positions even long after they've lost interest in it, which stifles opportunities for newer and more motivated players to take up the mantle. evaluations are cool but each metagame will demand different amounts of activity and knowledge from their councils so it's a bit hard to compose. I think what Kala alluded to with just reporting shitty council members is probably the best thing we can do lol

 

[BP]

We need term limits for council members. Unironically though just do regular evaluations of council members, procedurally. Some tiers actually do that and it helps keep them accountable

As funny as it sounds to do quarterly performance reviews on a Pokemon website, I think this is one of the better suggestions. I'd also like to revisit the rotating council idea, as I've been contemplating it quite a bit. I think that BFM's proposal could work in tandem with it. Ideally, you'd have two or three permanent council members (not including the TL) who run the metagame/tier continuously. These permanent council members would have shown enough drive and understanding to be candidates for a future TL position. Then, the remainder of the council would be rotated out every so often and receive an evaluation of their time spent within the council. The TL and the other permanent council members will conduct this evaluation. The cycle then repeats. I understand this does not take into account the performance of the permanent council members, but the details can be ironed out later.

issue is these things are always case-by-case but I can't help but feel like there's a smogon-wide issue of people not stepping down from positions even long after they've lost interest in it, which stifles opportunities for newer and more motivated players to take up the mantle.

I can attest to this personally as I am a bit guilty of this. I've been a part of the ADV ZU council for about three years. We've all had our stints of inactivity but have always returned and done something to keep our metagame being discussed. Since joining, I've set goals that I've wanted our metagame to reach, such as on-site analysis, ROA ladder rotation, inclusion into ADVPL, etc. We've been able to hit most of these goals over the years. However, I understand there isn't much left for me to do on the council. There isn't any opportunity for me to grow within my position. I have two badges; I turned down the TL position and retired from room staff. This has heavily hit my motivation to continue with my council position. Despite this what keeps me still on the council is the upcoming ADVPL, our on-site analysis revamp, and our discord server. I feel that these are responsibilities and goals that I cannot just shove onto someone else. I am stuck between a rock and a hard place if you will.

 

[Finchely]

Adding on to BFM’s post, as a member of the Ubers UU tiering council (yes it’s a Mickey tier but the sentiments still apply), for a short duration much earlier in the tier’s life, we actually did have monthly performance reviews where each member would rate every other member on competence, friendliness/toxicity, and one more metric which I’m forgetting. We sort of ended up dropping it cause everyone forgot to do them. But for the short duration we did have them, they were effective in the removal process of one council member who was no longer fit for their position.

Tbh monthly performance reviews are kind of a bit much, especially for oldgen councils. But even so, quarterly or maybe biannual reviews could be very helpful and would allow council members to keep each other accountable. I think the biggest issue with this, is if the majority of the tiering council are “slackers” (for lack of a better, concise term (I’m writing on mobile)), and they fail to uphold integrity. But that speaks more to a larger problem within the system where upper Smogon Staff may need to get more involved regardless.

Just some other thoughts on the matter:

I agree with Zinnias that ladder reqs aren’t a great idea. There is something to be said that a councilperson should actively try to improve ladder activity (especially for smaller tiers), but any sort of objective quota or anything just seems like not a great idea for reasons that have already been mentioned. A requirement I do think should be in place though, is making a forum post for any kind of tiering decision - with the exception of irl extenuating circumstances or something. If a person can’t be bothered to share their reason behind a tiering decision, they shouldn’t be in that position to make decisions.

Idk if there are any specific issues that other councils have run into that have not been brought up yet, but performance reviews and forum posts seem like a pretty good starting point.

 

[N_Mareanie]

a solution could be adding more council members through a rotating council. you'll have your core council (let's say 7 or so people) and you add like 5+ (dont think there should be a hard limit) prominent people in the current scene who can help out with council stuff, like voting on quickbans / voting on what should get suspected. then maybe after a while after the players seem consistent and prominent enough in their council role they can be formally added. ive generally always thought the council pools should be a bit bigger cause generally it's made out of ~7-10 people, oftentimes only really half of which are super active. even though these are experienced players, in a game like pokemon there are so many different views on a metagame and with a bigger council there's less margin for error (for example, volcarona quickban probably wouldnt have happened). i think quickbans should definitely involve more people to begin with as it is kinda dumb that 7 people or so can dislike a mon and just get it out of here (i know it's done based on survey results now, but still). it'd be better if like 20 or so active and prominent players can vote on a quickban instead. just some food for thought.

i think adding more people temporarily could be good idea. maybe look at top 10 ladder / (semi-)finalists of big tours and ask them to join a rotating council from time to time. this way you give more breathing room to current council members, cause let's be real, we're doing this as a hobby and not as a job, and we should absolutely avoid feeling it like that by adding expected amounts of ladder games per week or something like that.

 

[Slowpoke Fan]

There isn't a way to do it that isn't utterly ridiculous. Would it be a weekly/monthly quota of ladder games? Might as well just get them over with on Monday so people don't bother them about it. Would there be an Elo or GXE requirement for council members to keep their position? Elo and GXE isn't that important to show a good player lol. And we can even get into tiers like GSC with dead ladders that take minutes to find a game, aiya. In my eyes, I at least prefer that some people are saying that they want rigid requirements for council laddering because at least it's a proposal, "Occasionally play ladder games" is just leading to more of the same that we have right now. The most important thing that can come from this thread are ideas for actual rules that will be enforced. So far I agree with council members needing to post describing their side on each suspect and participating in the test (unless they have circumstances going on). I also agree that they should be playing circuit.

First thing on the agenda, tiering leads have to go into those council chats and ask "Who wants to still be here and will you be able to back it up with activity in the near future? Are you going to be playing tours and talking to people around the community?" At the very least, you want your council members to be able to reply when they are contacted regarding the tier they are on the council for, and to reaffirm their continued interest in the tier. And I'm biased towards oldgens in my understanding, which are gens where there is reduced "council activities" like suspect tests, so an acceptable GSC council member will be a very different thing than an acceptable SV council member.

To summarise:
-I disagree with ladder requirements for council members. I would prefer that they play in circuit and play in suspects if they are able to make a detailed post about any votes they do. Subjectively I would like them to integrate with the wider community too, talking in discords and occasionally making a forum post, but this isn't something I believe healthy to enforce, I guess.
-This is a sitewide cultural issue with smogon positions and this will only change with rules that act to enforce the change
-In the short term, add more council members. After some period of time from activity-based removals being implemented, it'll be noticeable who should stay or not
-The expectation will look different for each generation and tier, so nothing that blankets from 1-9 and Ubers-LC exactly the same please :)

More or less agree with this post - I think that we should prioritise circuit and community participation over ladder play for most non-cg tiering councils (obviously proficiency is important, I don't want people to interpret this post as me trying to move up the Smogon ladder through criticising the existing power structure - I still have a long way to go and have no intention of taking up a council spot for the time being). This is particularly important to me as a player who mains a tier that has 4/5 council members not pass tournament requirements (albeit dated, if Masters results were added it would be 2/5 or 1/5 depending on how well you want council members to perform in SS during the publicly viewable Swiss rounds), much less engaging with the community. This post is not intended to call out the incumbent SS OU council members - I respect all of the council members and fully recognise their excellence in the tier, but I do believe that the lack of activity is something that doesn't only plague SS OU and can + should be addressed promptly.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

issue is these things are always case-by-case but I can't help but feel like there's a smogon-wide issue of people not stepping down from positions even long after they've lost interest in it, which stifles opportunities for newer and more motivated players to take up the mantle. evaluations are cool but each metagame will demand different amounts of activity and knowledge from their councils so it's a bit hard to compose. I think what Kala alluded to with just reporting shitty council members is probably the best thing we can do lol

This is the main issue. People view the positions as "clout" which stems from smogons long history of glorifying people in the roles. Culture needs to shift to the roles as service with the expectation of stepping down once you can't dedicate the time. Make the positions easier to gain and easier to pass on, rather than the semi-permanent state they're in. Give people room to stretch their legs and develop as well, and aspire to. Make losing the position/stepping down destigmatized by allowing people to cycle on and off, reduce cases of grasping for power. Have periodic reviews by the council head of member activity, etc, etc

Edit: also related to the cycling, don't enforce specific council sizes, allow it to grow and shrink flexibly as your active policy contributor population changes

 

[Fc]

I don't think tiers should all have the same hard requirements for staying on council, but I do think it's important to have some accountability for activity and participation in a tier for council members. Recently, due to certain concerns about activity, Aberforth and I decided to mandate at least every other suspect test be done by council members, barring extremes like the Miraidon into Last Respects ones we had back to back within such a short time. This is an easier requirement in Ubers than most other tiers if given the same expectation, since ubers tests especially later into the gen happen at the fastest something like once every 6 months. Expecting our council to ladder like twice a year during our most important tiering times was something we felt was more than fair. It's not much but it's a low bar of activity that we want to expect out of our council, since just to get on it you already have to have proven yourself in the tier so participation in the tiering is essentially all we ask. For other tiers that experience frequent tests or consistent back to back ones like certain points of OU and UU this may not be advisable since it would force people to run through the same laddering challenge over and over again even if they have a small busy period in life. In our case, since it was spread out for us between many months we thought it was something we could expect out of our council given the high number of active players we have and how generally active our suspects get, so we wanted every council member to be a part of that.

We don't have a hard requirement on posting for suspects but heavily encourage all council members to do so and would consider removing for inactivity if they just refuse to participate over long periods of time. It's so easy to spend 5-10 minutes on just a short blurb on why you think one way for a suspect test, so I wouldn't mind it being a council requirement either. Not every post has to be some character limit hitting essay on why something should be banned, but it shows a lot on a tier when most of the council isn't doing anything during a suspect test when something small like just writing a paragraph on your feelings can be easy and also go a long way.

On the backend there's also quite a bit of vetting that goes into adding council members, we always share thoughts among our council members before adding anyone, and official tiers have to give a short period of time to allow for all CL+'s to review nominations. Not sure if that last part is written anywhere but it's something that I think is important to note since the OP wants to be as transparent as possible and this happens in a hidden forum. Sometimes people might question who gets onto council either for their stance as a player of the metagame or just as a user, but the council should internally review their standing as a participant in the meta and all CL's get to be sure that the user has no bad history or questionable behaviour that would be unfitting for someone representing an official tier, so at least making those basic requirements known might help shine light onto the process. What every council is looking for in a new member will change depending on the tier and at different times of course, but I think if a tiering council is completely dead in terms of discussion before someone is added it's not a great thing and should be worked on in said tier. Not calling out any tier in particular there since I have zero idea what goes on in any other metas tiering council channels, but just something to look out for if this may apply to anyone's council.

I'm not sure if in Ubers we'll always keep the same activity requirements we implemented, if we'll change to include postings or active tournament play since showing you keep up with the metagame is also important for cg council members, or if we'll loosen up to no hard requirements just discussions between TL's to discuss activity of council members. Any of these things could happen and I don't expect every tier to copy us exactly, nor do I think it would even benefit most tiers, but I think this thread is a good thing to have so we can at least share some ideas on how we can improve our councils. I try to be as transparent as possible whenever someone asks me about anything since I really don't like hiding things on this website, I see very little point in it. If people don't think our requirements are good I wouldn't mind changing them, but I think they're fitting for ubers and most of our council managed to get reqs on our recent suspect test + we have quite good posting activity anyway. As a whole for all tiers I'd just say a few things should be kept in mind:

- If your tiering channel on discord is very active, especially in tiers with more tests, moniter linecount. If someone has no lines in months during important tiering discussions that's a concern
- Try to have your council get reqs on every test that's possible for them. Some official tiers have dropped heavily in numbers of voters on some tests and it's important to make sure most of the people who dictate suspects that happen actually vote in them. idk if any tiers in particular have low numbers on council member voters I didn't check recent individual voters, just especially for officials the council should be expected to actively participate in tests as much as possible
- Heavily encourage your council to make posts. Over a 2 week period for tests it's such an insignificant amount of time to make a short post, so even if it isn't super in depth just showing participation and giving small reasonings for your viewpoints makes a big difference

Overall I agree that once you get on council it shouldn't be a free ride to just stay until you step down, there should most definitely be something that you have to maintain to stay on council. Whether it's tournaments, laddering for reqs, or metagame discussion posts, just something to show signs of life and that you still are both active in the metagame and actually care about it as a council member is really important and all TL's should at least get a rough idea of what's required. It doesn't have to be a strict number like x messages or some specific laddering time / number of votes, but anything to make sure that the council is representing their tier in the way they should and doing what's best for the playerbase, and if they don't meet this then they should be replaced by someone more committed to it. As TL's we should also hold ourselves accountable, of course, and should be the ones leading the discussions and activity in the first place which hopefully with certain requirements all council members do as well.

 

[bumboclaat]

I meant to make a post a couple of weeks ago, but irl ended up getting in the way and I have a bit more free time now. I do like a lot of the suggestions that have been put forward in this thread, but as Finch mentions in the OP guidelines are the way to go. Others have touched on tiers having different levels of activity and thus council members are going to have different levels of involvement in their respective communities. Although current gen v old gen is a clear example, even within old gens themselves there is a stark difference between old gen OU and old gen lower tiers in terms of activity.

General guidelines work better than strict requirements due to varying activity demands of each tier. The varying suggestions for requirements for suspect participation and resource maintenance are things I wholly agree with. However, I was under the assumption that these were already requirements so codifying and providing a mechanism for enforcement of these is a good thing.

The main reason I wanted to make this post is because I believe that the most important part of being a council member is community interaction. Finch isn’t perfect, he is a Yankees fan after all, but one of the things he goes above and beyond is the degree to which he interacts and involves the community. I’m not talking about surveys, but regularly chiming in with his thoughts in the meta discussion / suspect threads on various topics as well as privately giving feedback on various things if you reach out to him. Asuma is also great in this regard.

As someone who doesn’t play SVOU, the reason I have any interest in it at all is in large part due to the high quality posts that Finch, Asuma, Vivian, and a few others make on a regular basis. Monky25’s work with the SSUU VR was similar and was part of the reason I dabbled in that tier last generation. I’m sure lots of other council members are more active on discord than on the forums, but I can’t speak to those.

If there is one thing that comes from this thread I’d hope that it would be an expectation that councils are more involved with their community in a discussion sense. Activity requirements should be the bare minimum. Expecting any council member to be available and active as Finch is ridiculous, but as a whole I think we can do a lot better. I’m not exactly sure how one would go about implementing that though. Being a council member should come with more than simply just playing the metagame you help lead. Pretty much every metagame has more people that play at a high enough level to be trusted with voting on suspects and maintaining resources than council slots available so I don't think it is unreasonable for council members to be expected to do more than this.

 

[Chessking345]

I wanted to comment on this with respect to smaller, less active communities, since due to lower activity and attention in whatever form, these tiers feel like they are more prone to having inactive council (correct me if I'm wrong) and thus this PR being more relevant. On top of that, for such communities/tiers, council holds a significantly more impactful position, as with lesser top active players council itself becomes a good portion of that, on top of such tiers potentially having more quick actions compared to suspects, giving more power to council in general.

One other attribute of smaller communities is that there are less candidates for council. I think that a smaller council size is much better than trying to "artificially" maintain council size by slacking any requirements. Having a smaller council does give more power to the few members, but I think it is better to give that power to the few that have demonstrated their qualifications than having less-qualified members potentially affect the metagame in question. Council of 3 very active dedicated members seems completely fine to me and better than adding 2 less involved members. Not going to comment on the rotational council idea as those demand a large enough community to sustain.

Several prior posts have already touched on some sort of council member reviewing process. I think some sort of official formalization would be really beneficial, either having designated people to approach or lay it out that tier leaders should have the power and responsibility. Personally I think regardless of the latter it would be useful to have some people (maybe section leaders for subcommunities?) that can approach councils to check up in case leaders are either inactive themselves or do not want to go into the removing people stuff. It is easy to add people to council, and it's not that hard to remove people that have gone inactive, but as people have mentioned it is touchy to remove people that are plenty active but just not meeting council expectations. The council surveys proposed seem quite reasonable if they are not too long or frequent, especially if upper leadership notices any issues with either council or metagame state/health.


Regarding the guidelines people have brought up, I think the 3 points in pulsar512b's post are pretty good sufficient and necessary conditions.
- Keeping up with the meta is fairly obvious, it could be through whatever methods, like playing/actively building in tours, actively laddering, etc. but if one hasn't touched the meta and is out of touch they should not be involved in council duties asap (it's fine if its like temporary since non-mons life exists to abstain on some votes). I do think building is like more important than just playing since it shows more involvement with the tier, but I don't think people get counciled just by clicking well anyways. Competence I think is a given if one is/was considered for council, this doesn't go away unless the person is out of touch with meta.
- Caring about the tier is probably the most important point provided they demonstrate reasonable competence in the tier. You can have someone that plays in every single tournament and ladders regularly but it's completely pointless if they don't invest anything towards the tier or their council duties. Resource maintenance, at least for important ones like VR and Samples should be obligatory, and the other resources can mostly be done by one person. So its more of making quality posts and starting/engaging in quality discussions, both on Smogon and respective discord servers; forum posts are way better but I think depending on tier discord activity is passable depending on other criteria qualities. This active posting is particularly important for less active metagames to keep up thread/channel activity and interest. Teamdumping, such as after major tours or submitting samples, should also be more or less standard for council members, it doesn't matter if the teams are sample-quality or not, teamdumping shows evidence of actively engaging with the tier. C&C work is cool and can be encouraged but there can be really dedicated members that just don't want to engage with that stuff.
- Being able to provide reasoning for any decisions, which could be a tiering vote or even a VR/Samples vote. This is also fairly obvious but it also helps show that said member cares enough instead of just making vote decisions on a whim. Not sure if it is a good idea to mandate posting thoughts on any tiering action element but if prompted then there should at least be some sort of well-thought out response. Obviously also should be expected to do good active discussion within council on anything, dead council chats are very poor for state of meta since stuff get done slowly and is particularly bad for even number councils when ties occur and no resolution happens so nothing gets done.
- I wanted to add taking the role seriously, which means following tiering guidelines where applicable and at least not being too biased, which ties in to the "being able to make good reasoning", as well as demonstrating reasonable maturity when necessary. I don't think council votes should be overly affected by personal biases, since the goal is to create a healthier and more enjoyable tier in general, not just for a specific council member.

Lastly going back to the easy to add hard to remove point, I think it would definitely not be bad to have more thought and discussion when adding new members regardless if removing becomes easier or w/e. Makes everything simpler if selected council members are going to be consistent for a good while in the first place than having to look for replacements later on.

 

[KineSquared]

We need term limits for council members. Unironically though just do regular evaluations of council members, procedurally. Some tiers actually do that and it helps keep them accountable

Adding on to BFM’s post, as a member of the Ubers UU tiering council (yes it’s a Mickey tier but the sentiments still apply), for a short duration much earlier in the tier’s life, we actually did have monthly performance reviews where each member would rate every other member on competence, friendliness/toxicity, and one more metric which I’m forgetting. We sort of ended up dropping it cause everyone forgot to do them. But for the short duration we did have them, they were effective in the removal process of one council member who was no longer fit for their position.

To fill in the gaps:
Ubers UU had regular council evaluations held between just me and Council. I am not on the Ubers UU council, I'm pracitcally a tier leader but not council leader. Every council member rated every other council member on a scale from 1-5 on Skill, Activity, and Toxicity.

Activity -
Rate the Council Members activity levels, where 5 is "incredibly active and engaged" and 1 is "inactive such that it inhibits council activity"
Skill -
Rate the Council Members metagame skill, where 5 is "highly skilled" and 1 is "lacking such that it inhibits council activity"
Toxicity (Maybe it should be renamed "Amicability"?)-
Rate the Council Members general behavior, where 5 is "friendly, open, and well-meaning" and 1 is "toxic, overly argumentative or otherwise unpleasant"

Typically most good, skilled, active council members had scores above 3.5 in all categories, and for the scores under that approximate threshold, I'd give them an unofficial warning. I'd send the council their personal scores but not share everything with everyone. Low enough scores or low scores across multiple surveys were grounds for letting council members go, which has never been an easy conversation to have.

We've slowed on them mostly because we've arrived at a pretty good stasis where most council members basically receive high scores on everything, and we haven't changed council much at all. In the early days of the meta when we were only a month old it made sense to have monthly surveys, but yea these days if we kept them up they'd be quarterly at most.

As long as you trust the bulk of your council to be well-meaning, I would trust surveys like this. The idea of corruption/everyone rating up their friends could technically happen, but I think that would not pass the sniff test, and I trust at least my council to be more passionate about maintaining the community than maintaining their personal spot in it. The surveys have also been good "pushes" to get council to fix any particular area they have a low score in.

 

[Sputnik]

I'm just gonna pitch in to this as someone who has actually been kicked off of a council for inactivity. Towards the end of Gen 8 I burned out super hard and really stopped caring about Pokemon. At the time I was really ingrained in National Dex, as I was on the council, QC team, and a Natdex Room Mod. Real life stuff got to me and I got super burned out.

It took me a very long time to get booted off of the council, and honestly it should have happened way sooner. I regret the fact that I didn't recognize my burnout at the time, and I should have resigned my posts on all of these myself rather than leaving it to the active members of the council to manually kick me off. I am in full support of these requirements, as I imagine the benchmarks for expected activity at the time were completely arbitrary. This suggestion would streamline situations like mine if/when they happen and make sure that council members across Smogon are held accountable. It will also encourage those who are burning out to actively resign from their posts rather than falling into the "I don't care anymore" mindset that I did.

This isn't the point of this, but I do apologize to anyone who was affected by my inaction at the time, even if its a couple years past us. I am in full support of some form of standardized council expectations, and I look forward to hopefully seeing this implemented.