The UU Senate

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Current Members: kokoloko (Senate Leader), DestinyUnknown, reachzero, RT., upstart, FlareBlitz, PK Gaming

This isn't your grandfather's UU Council (hence the much sleeker name)! The Senate attempts to keep community involvement in the tiering system at a maximum, while centralizing the decision process to a select few members that are both most qualified in battling ability and reasoning skills to produce the best UU tier possible. Those chosen for the Senate have to their job very seriously. Consider it the equivalent of being a higher up in C&C with the amount of work/writing you'll have to do.

Those wishing to apply should PM me and kokoloko with the following (APPLICATIONS CLOSED)

1. Provide me with a screenshot of their current ladder rating
2. Explain their involvement in the UU community
3. Write paragraphs explaining both why a recent OU/UU suspect (Sand Stream for example) should have been banned and why it shouldn't have been (this serves as sort of a litmus test for seeing your explanation/reasoning skills).

Do not halfass this. We will be taking the entire application very seriously (especially the third part).

These three things are very important because:

1. Senate members will be required to maintain a high ladder rating. This is to make sure that Senate members are constantly up to date in ladder trends.
2. Senate members will be required to engage in active discussion in the np megathreads. Non-members are encouraged to bring up potential suspects and start debates with Senate members. #genvuu will also turn into a channel where these debates can also take place.
3. Senate members will each be required to provide in-depth reasoning for their decision (think old school pain in the ass paragraphs)

As you can see, this is going to be a hellish job. So, please, only apply if you intend on taking your position seriously.

Notes:

• Senate members are permanent unless they step down or are replaced for inactivity. They will either be replaced through new applications or grabbed from an applicant from the last time.
  
• Suspects won't be determined by a nomination thread, but rather by community opinion in the np threads. If enough people bring up a Pokemon and debate it, a separate thread will be opened and the Senate will then vote on it.
  
• A suspect needs only to receive a 4-3 by the Senate vote to be banned.

 

[THATSAplusONE]

This sounds great! I know it will work.

 

[Antar]

I really like this idea.

 

[Heysup]

Jabba is the bomb

 

[Upstart]

I am in support of this and really pulling for it to work out. About how high on the ladder is required/ expected of senate members?

 

[NatGeo]

excellent, this should be interesting!

 

[Progeusz]

awesome idea

 

[jessifer]

This sounds interesting. (Will probably never get in.)

 

[Cheapoman]

Sounds promising.

 

[Ace Emerald]

This sounds like a really good idea, and I really hope I can at least get Jabba to accept my application. Time to ladder like nuts and make some ballin' paragraphs.

 

[Godsend]

One quick question, you say we would need to keep our rating high, but how high? Top ten? Top five?

 

[DetroitLolcat]

I don't like this system, it sounds like an even worse version of the already terrible Smogon Council, but I guess it could work.

This sounds like a really good idea, and I really hope I can at least get Jabba to accept my application. Time to ladder like nuts and make some ballin' paragraphs.

 

[Godsend]

I don't like this system, it sounds like an even worse version of the already terrible Smogon Council, but I guess it could work.

I think it is a good idea. It'll stop something from getting banned like Excadrill. Yeah, he was easily considered broken, but was deemed not broken like five(?) consecutive times in suspect tests, until the right pool of voters got together and he was banned. I'm not commenting on his brokenness, but when he is voted not uber that many times, it was really just a matter of time until he got the boot. I like the idea of a small pool of the most well versed making decisions on bans.

 

[idiotfrommars]

Is anything like this planned for OU or will this be strictly UU for the foreseeable future?

 

[Mishra]

I think it is a good idea. It'll stop something from getting banned like Excadrill. Yeah, he was easily considered broken, but was deemed not broken like five(?) consecutive times in suspect tests, until the right pool of voters got together and he was banned. I'm not commenting on his brokenness, but when he is voted not uber that many times, it was really just a matter of time until he got the boot. I like the idea of a small pool of the most well versed making decisions on bans.

Excadril did cause a lot of problems. He needed to go, and blaming the voters doesn't change that.

I don't think I would ever make the senate. I understand the metagame, but I can't seem to create good teams...=(. That being said, I think it is a great idea and fully support it.

I would love to see SJcrew, Pocket, Heysup, and a few others (and obviously, Jaba). Good luck to all who apply though.

 

[jas61292]

I don't like this system, it sounds like an even worse version of the already terrible Smogon Council, but I guess it could work.

This.

I'm not the most active in UU, but I really don't think a small group of people making decisions for everyone does anything but make the decisions less reflective of what the community wants. That being said, the fact that the people are chosen based on applications rather than just decisions of the people in charge is a step in the right direction (though having community members decide on who is selected would be even better). I think the biggest problem though is the permanency of the position. No position should be permanent, because it allows people who have the power to ignore the will of the community. No important position should be permanent. People should have to earn the right to get it again by convincing the community that they have the best thing for the game in mind.

 

[Banedon]

... five people? @_@

And yeah, I don't like the system either. Since the players are not chosen in any objective way, there's bound to be some subjectivity, which can alienate potential voters. Not to mention not everyone who's at the top of the ladder are good at English ...

 

[Oglemi]

I am confused with your reasoning. You're concern is that it's subjective? Are you suggesting that it's less subjective than the rating requirements vote? That vote has no way of even having an argument presented. You just do well with said broken Pokemon and vote but you ARE NOT voting for whether or not the Pokemon is broken, you vote for whether or not YOU want the Pokemon removed from the game. That is not only subjective but it is also not the correct vote.

This way, we actually logically deduce the best answers under direct supervision of the moderators. We can logically deduce the best answer within a small group of people unlike the other methods. Every way of banning is subjective.

If subjectivity is your concern, then we cannot do any sort of banning. If validity is your concern, this method out classes the requirement method.

yeah I feel this applies here too p.s. yes I'm throwing Heysup under the bus for more arguments..... coughhedidn'tinventtheovercentralizationisn'tawordargumentcough

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Except for the Senate members being permanent in principle (since when you only have to be voted once for that IRL?????), this idea seem much better than both the old suspect testing and the Smogon Council. I like where this may head us to.

 

[rubixlx0]

This is a great idea. They should put this in OU instead of people complaining about weather and randoms who dont even have a ranking nominating things they cant deal with/rant. But with all seriousness, this could lead to good things.

 

[jas61292]

yeah I feel this applies here too p.s. yes I'm throwing Heysup under the bus for more arguments.....

As that quote was in response to something I said, I feel I should respond. I already agreed that all ways of banning are subjective (well unless you just banned things over a certain amount of usage, but that would just be stupid). Yet, this subjectivity is derived solely from the fact that people vote on it and people have differing opinions.

However, when it comes to other parts of the system, a council or "senate" style just compounds the subjectivity exponentially. Not only are the votes themselves subjective, but so is the way that the voters are selected. There is absolutely no objectivity about it, and for something as important as changes to the metagame, I just don't find that acceptable.

In a system like the suspect voting we have had, however, the subjectivity of the votes is all the subjectivity there is. Everything else about the way the voters are determined is pretty much objective. Anyone who deserves it can vote, and people who are well know, but not necessarily any better than anyone else don't get special treatment.

That being said, this proposed system is slightly better than other council style systems, as the method of becoming a senate member is slightly more objective, and it is partially based on having and keeping a high ranking, thus making it less likely that people who aren't necessarily the best get in. However, it still has serious flaws.

In addition to the increased subjectivity of it, there is also the fact that, the smaller the sample size, the less accurate the info (votes) is when compared to the true desires of the population as a whole. With the previous system, anyone who proves themselves worthy can vote. But with a council style system, there are set numbers, which arbitrarily limit how many people vote, and thus reduces the chances that the vote will be what the people want.

Basically, the whole point is that a council style system is significant less likely to have the results that the community as a whole desires. And, in the end, isn't that the entire point of the suspect process? To make the game what the community wants it to be.

You just do well with said broken Pokemon and vote but you ARE NOT voting for whether or not the Pokemon is broken, you vote for whether or not YOU want the Pokemon removed from the game. That is not only subjective but it is also not the correct vote.

Also, specifically to this, all that is being said here is that voting doesn't work. The only way this argument could possibly give any support to either side is if you claim that all people who vote in a reqs system vote what they like, and not what is best for the game, but at the same time, all people selected for a council do the opposite. This is completely unproveable, and to me, I find the very notion laughable.

As long as the system involves people voting at all, then there will be the issue of people having the wrong reasons for their vote. All you are claiming with this point is what I have already said, voting is subjective. And that is why we need an objective way of deciding who can vote so that our decisions have at least some credibility.

This way, we actually logically deduce the best answers under direct supervision of the moderators. We can logically deduce the best answer within a small group of people unlike the other methods.

One more thing. We have discussion in the previous system. The only way that this would possibly make it better is if we assume that those people in charge are the most knowledgeable and qualified people out there. Now I am sure all the people in charge are knowledgeable and qualified, but I don't think we can assume they are always going to be the most qualified. I don't think giving any group of people more power than others in the decision making process will help at all. All it will do is skew the decisions from what the populace thinks to what the small group thinks. Now if they do their job there should be no difference. But then if there is no difference, why do we need them at all?

 

[Pocket]

Well, jas, these UU senators will be the ambassadors of the community, by actively engaging in discussions on irc and on the mega thread. They should reflect and voice the community's beliefs. The requirement to write paragraphs to elaborate on their final decision is also the right movement forward.

Perhaps Jabba can grant access to those applications to the public, so that regular members can vote on some of the candidates? (ie the brain trust selects 3 while the public selects 2?)

Banedon had brought a pressing issue - five people is a very small group of people. I understand that UU is a much less played tier than OU, but I am positive that there are plenty of talented UU players to fill the position (and would be eager to take on the heavy work load that comes with it). I'd consider bumping the size of the senate to 7 or 9 candidates.

Getting 3 votes to ban something seems ridiculously precarious imo, and hardly an unanimous vote. I feel like a ban requirement should happen if 4 out of 5, 5 out of 7, 6 out of 9, etc deemed the Pokemon or tactic BL. Again, having a larger senate pool would make this process more flexible.

I'm excited that the UU tiering process has resumed!

EDIT: hell, if RU council can get 7 people (albeit they did skip the entire application process), I'm pretty sure UU can gather up at least 9 senators.

 

[jas61292]

Well, jas, these UU senators will be the ambassadors of the community, by actively engaging in discussions on irc and on the mega thread. They should reflect and voice the community's beliefs. The requirement to write paragraphs to elaborate on their final decision is also the right movement forward.

Perhaps Jabba can grant access to those applications to the public, so that regular members can vote on some of the candidates? (ie the brain trust selects 3 while the public selects 2?)

Banedon had brought a pressing issue - five people is a very small group of people. I understand that UU is a much less played tier than OU, but I am positive that there are plenty of talented UU players to fill the position (and would be eager to take on the heavy work load that comes with it). I'd consider bumping the size of the senate to 7 or 9 candidates.

Getting 3 votes to ban something seems ridiculously precarious imo, and hardly an unanimous vote. I feel like a ban requirement should happen if 4 out of 5, 5 out of 7, 6 out of 9, etc deemed the Pokemon or tactic BL. Again, having a larger senate pool would make this process more flexible.

I'm excited that the UU tiering process has resumed!

To be honest, if the public did have a vote on who was selected, then (while It might not be my ideal system), I certainly would think it is a good idea. I just don't like a system where power is given out by a group that is not necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Also, as I have said, I certainly agree about increasing the numbers. Personally I don't like having a cap, as I think all people qualified should have a vote, but if for some reason there must be one, 5 is way too low. Especially if all it take to ban is a simple majority.

 

[FlareBlitz]

I like this idea in general. The only thing I would question is the permanent appointment of senate members. Maybe replace 1/3rd of the members at the start of every new round? That way there'll be healthy competition among the senate members to improve their participation and/or rating, and also (more importantly) the ability for other members of the community to get involved in the process. The replaced individuals may reapply the round after, and will have preferential appointment opportunities if they still meet the requirements.

 

[Royal Flush]

Hmm 5 members? Seems too low indeed, maybe a second application in the future? But anyway sounds very promising, good shit, Jabba.