The UU Senate

[PK Gaming]

I don't necessarily agree with that. For me at least, my incentive for playing is because I enjoy the game. And, I am sure that is the reason for many other people to play. However, with that reason alone, there is no reason to try to climb the ladder. Sure I enjoy winning, but if there is nothing important to be gained, I really won't care so much. And while this might not seem so bad, as I am still going to play, if I have no incentive to win, then why should I use the Pokemon that are the best, and not just my favorites? This can throw off the tiers. I won't say it will completely screw everything up, but it certainly has the potential to change things in major ways.


And, i would say there have been plenty of valid suggestions to replace the senate, but I would also say that it seems they will just be ignored. But in either case, this is what this thread is for, so there is no reason to discuss anything else.

The senate only accepts the best of the best UU players. If not willing to use Pokemon who are up to par / and achieve voting rights(on top of meeting the other criteria) then i'm sorry the senate does not want you as a play. While the senate may be "different" the overall process hasn't changed. You ladder if you want suspect voting rights, and likewise you do the same if you want to be a senate member. Senate members need to be hard working individuals, otherwise there's no point to even opening a senate.

In short, if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. (I'm not trying to be harsh, its true)

 

[Heysup]

I don't necessarily agree with that. For me at least, my incentive for playing is because I enjoy the game. And, I am sure that is the reason for many other people to play. However, with that reason alone, there is no reason to try to climb the ladder. Sure I enjoy winning, but if there is nothing important to be gained, I really won't care so much. And while this might not seem so bad, as I am still going to play, if I have no incentive to win, then why should I use the Pokemon that are the best, and not just my favorites? This can throw off the tiers. I won't say it will completely screw everything up, but it certainly has the potential to change things in major ways.

There is a reason to climb the ladder; to be at the top of it. You don't get anything from it but you do get status, a sense of achievement and whatever else. This matters far more than badges. If not, why are a significant portion of the top ladder players badged users?

That is mostly why I wish we could use weighted stats for tiering. However, you can do that and still attempt to win. You aren't playing with your favorite mons just to lose. Thankfully that mentality of "just using your favorites" won't get anyone any valuable position on the ladder and is not common at all.

And, i would say there have been plenty of valid suggestions to replace the senate, but I would also say that it seems they will just be ignored. But in either case, this is what this thread is for, so there is no reason to discuss anything else.

Most of them have been criticized and debunked quickly after suggestion. Did one slip by I didn't see?

 

[Pocket]

Heysup - Most of them have been criticized and debunked quickly after suggestion. Did one slip by I didn't see?

"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."

Why does restricting the voting decisions to a select qualified few results in a change in the conditions of a ban? To me, ban is an emergency decision, and should only be realized if the significant majority opts for it. A 51~60% support for ban seems too divisive to send a Pokemon out of a tier, imo.

 

[Machi]

Why does restricting the voting decisions to a select qualified few results in a change in the conditions of a ban? To me, ban is an emergency decision, and should only be realized if the significant majority opts for it. A 51~60% support for ban seems too divisive to send a Pokemon out of a tier, imo.

I would think the numbers for a ban may be more apt to change in relation to the final results of how many actually get accepted to the senate. Isn't supermajority 2/3 (I do not see the +1 being too apt in a situation with such few voters since that +1 would be significantly different from 2/3 because of the lack of numbers). 3 out of 5 seems IMO is more plausible for deciding given that number since what has been seen on practice with the actual suspect testing is that there is still a significant amount of abstain votes.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85188
Meaning there is still the strong possibility of deadlocks occurring or difficulty in even achieving a majority, it may look easier to get banned but we still have to see how other factors like abstention work out. I would say again this is one of the wait and see scenarios - even moreso that we don't exactly have a solid number of senates in order to decide whether super-majority would be better applicable than majority. Besides this question isn't much different in the end from asking to increase the pool of the possible senate since this again talks about needing more people to create a much 'balanced' or 'fairer' decision, since a larger pool would allow for the implementation of the 2/3+1 rule much better than just 5.

Actually on the note of abstain votes is there a possibility that the senate system may work something out regarding that aspect? I would say that given the numbers perhaps more rigorous debates could be done on more divisive decisions that leave senates on the fence so as a resolution could be reached much sooner rather than later, including whether or not to leave it as is for testing as an auto-suspect next round or whatnot.

 

[Heysup]

I'm not sure exactly how the %'s will work, but I'm opposed to any biased process (like the 66%+1 method we used). I don't see why we should be biased against banning or for banning. If a Pokemon is broken, it should be banned. It's still broken even if it's "barely broken" like a 50%+1 simple majority suggests.

 

[iSkittles]

What happened to playing Pokemon for fun? Those "arguments" about there being no point seems absolutely ridiculous to me. If there's no point in playing Pokemon then I think you should find something else to do with your time instead of bitching and complaining. Or if you simply MUST vote, then do your damndest to get on the council or deal with it. I think it's a fairly simple solution to all the gripes.

If there's any kinks with the new system then I'm sure they'll iron out in time, but all this useless moaning and whining isn't helping anything. The mods have heard the complains and I'm sure they'll be taken into consideration. But all these what ifs and proposals are hella annoying to sift through.

Anyways, how is Porygon Z fairing in UU these days. I'd think that with Adaptibilty and Agility with a LO it could really tear shit up late game.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

To me, ban is an emergency decision, and should only be realized if the significant majority opts for it.

QFT, at least IMO.

Als0,

If a Pokemon is broken, it should be banned. It's still broken even if it's "barely broken" like a 50%+1 simple majority suggests.

I'm not so sure about this. Smogon's Philosophy states that

Smogon attempts to avoid bans as much as possible—only when it becomes very apparent that a Pokémon is far too powerful to be in line with a balanced metagame is it banished permanently from the standard arena.

At least as I interpret it, a ban isn't warranted if something's only a little broken. If something's just a little broken, then there's probably arguments both for and against banning it, and it should only be banned if it is obviously way too good for the metagame that it's been placed in. For this reason, Smogon should at its heart be against banning. 50%+1 is incredibly divisive and shows that the Pokemon's brokenness is up for debate (though that point is almost null since we're moving to a council system).

Remember, a ban is the most serious restriction on a metagame one can place, and too many bans suggests that Smogon is simply taking out the next most powerful thing in order to achieve this idealized goal of "the perfect metagame". Honestly, effects on the metagame should not be looked at when we decide on banning. Terms like "overcentralization", "healthier metagame", "only a few counters", should be omitted from any tiering voter's vocabulary. It's why "no counters" should be a prerequisite, not a justification for banning. If a Pokemon can be perfectly countered by another, how can it break the metagame? Especially if it has counters and viable checks.

Bottom line: Bans are only warranted for obviously broken things. If a Pokemon's brokenness has to be debated for a long period of time, that's almost a testament to its non-brokenness.

 

[Scoopapa]

Another reason for 66% +1 or another "biased" requirement is that it accounts for margin of error a little bit. Different senates might have different results, so going for more than 50% means that there is less chance that something is getting banned because the particular senate was too harsh. There's no real way to calculate that margin of error, but ideally you would set it to something where if our senate (the only one I know) gives a certain percentage, then there is no chance that a different senate would rule less than 50%. It's kind of an unattainable theoretical ideal, but I can see some sense in trying to approximate it.

It does imply that we err on the side of caution when it comes to bans, but that isn't really a controversial stance.

 

[Thatsjustpeachy]

In short, if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. (I'm not trying to be harsh, its true)

Well i suppose the 10 people other than the senate members themselve that really care that much about the system can have fun with that then. I highly doubt anyone else wants to dedicate their lives to ladder scores and discussions. Since smogon is pretty much a "who you know system" for getting a spot in the senate(I've been told by another senate member himself), there is no way someone will go out of their way to commit in maintaining a high ladder score everyday and engaging in discussion since they are not garunteed to participate in voting. If i did all that work and didn't get in, I'd be just wasting my time. Most people are busy with school so a longterm commitment(which is what the senate is pushing for) is quite unfavorable.

If I was some new person trying out to get to the UU senate, I would rather take the option in which i was garunteed a vote as long as I reached a ladder requirement at a certain period. This allows everyone an equal opportunity to participate. If your looking for a stronger UU field of voters then why not just increase the ladder score you have to reach? Or at least make the senate capacity to include all that are qualified. If your good enough you should be garunteed to get in. So back to OU for me since I don't have time this kind of system(unless they do this to OU too in which i'll just quit pokemon)

 

[Machi]

So back to OU for me since I don't have time this kind of system(unless they do this to OU too in which i'll just quit pokemon)

OU was also planning to change up its suspect voting system, most likely also a sort of variation of council style. It was already mentioned during the last voting period that the tier along with UU would be undergoing changes in the way it handles bans, hence no new suspect thread list has been made since the recent banning done.

 

[Pocket]

Thatsjustpeachy, you get "in-the-know" by actively laddering and posting on forums / discussions. Anyone has a chance if they make the commitment, since people will notice your activity.

If you can't make the commitment to partake in the Senate, then whatever. You can still enjoy Pokemon, and whatever contributions you make in discussions may very well sway a senator or two's stance on a suspect.

Heysup, as DetroitLolcat pointed out Smogon has been biased towards NOT banning mons out of a tier. It's much harder to re-consider a ban once it's been made; the decision to ban should be much more decisive than a pro-ban group having 1 more senator than the anti-ban camp.

 

[Shy Glizzy]

I think we should be biased for not banning a pokemon. The goal is to make a balanced metagame with the largest amount of viable pokemon, no?

 

[am zane ok.]

The number of senators dramatically needs an increase. Being one of the five means an assload of power to one individual, regardless of if he/she "represents the community" or not. The idea of an agenda was brought up before, and the fact is that if there were to be, say, nine people in the senate (and I say nine rather than ten to evade the issue of a 50/50 vote), a more radical individual's agenda would be critically compromised, not to say that they still can't contribute to the vote (and to be honest, representing 11% is pretty damned influential, still).

I feel like it could work with nine (maybe even eleven) senators. Definitely more effectively than the shit we've got going on right now, lol.

Unfortunately, though, I (like many Smogon players) don't use IRC. Actually, I'm more or less opposed to webchat in general, for all online games. It's unlucky that we (as non-IRC users) are less represented, but I guess that's the price I (we) pay for not investing the time/energy in it. Perhaps a more interactive discussion system via forum boards would be helpful, such as a subforum with further subforums to discuss an issue to/with one specific representative, or something. I'm kinda just mumbling at this point of my post, lol.

It has also been brought up that a lot of us DO indeed play for fun rather than competitiveness. I (while with a clear competitive influence) include myself within that category, and am a little worried about accurate representation. For example, I believe many of the OU dropouts (specifically Machamp, Hippowdon, and Chandelure) are not necessarily overpowered, but VERY unhealthy for the fun factor of the game. In fact, that was my view on shit like Chansey (before this round molested her thoroughly), but I was very, very let down when nothing happened to her. The problem is that other people that play for the same reason are WAY less likely to have any leverage, as we're the ones with lower rankings (thanks decay!) and less input (or popularity) on IRC/forums, considering we are more likely to be working and/or going to college. In conclusion, I feel that we who play for fun will be hard-pressed to get a word in. But I guess that's always been the case. I just thought I'd bring it up now, as this is an opportunity to actually be listened to, rather than discounted as a gimmicky player base.

Take this post with a grain of salt. I just woke up. ):

-Zane

 

[DetroitLolcat]

Wait, do we send in applications by PM? And how long do we have to make these applications?

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Wait, do we send in applications by PM? And how long do we have to make these applications?

Yes PM them to me and Lonelyness, I'll clarify that in the OP.

And however long it takes you to make a quality application. Some people can make their points more succinctly than others so I'm not going to be a highschool english teacher and put a page count on this.

 

[jas61292]

The senate only accepts the best of the best UU players. If not willing to use Pokemon who are up to par / and achieve voting rights(on top of meeting the other criteria) then i'm sorry the senate does not want you as a play. While the senate may be "different" the overall process hasn't changed. You ladder if you want suspect voting rights, and likewise you do the same if you want to be a senate member. Senate members need to be hard working individuals, otherwise there's no point to even opening a senate.

In short, if you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. (I'm not trying to be harsh, its true)

Here is what I think about that:

...there is no way someone will go out of their way to commit in maintaining a high ladder score everyday and engaging in discussion since they are not garunteed to participate in voting. If i did all that work and didn't get in, I'd be just wasting my time. Most people are busy with school so a longterm commitment(which is what the senate is pushing for) is quite unfavorable.

The fact is that you can be perfectly qualified and not make it in. Not being able to dedicate your life to it does not mean you are not qualified. The simple fact is that a system like this discriminates. Qualified people don't get in, and it does not encourage people to try as hard because there is no guarantee you will get anything for your work. That is not what I want from a system.

 

[LonelyNess]

The fact is that you can be perfectly qualified and not make it in. Not being able to dedicate your life to it does not mean you are not qualified. The simple fact is that a system like this discriminates. Qualified people don't get in, and it does not encourage people to try as hard because there is no guarantee you will get anything for your work. That is not what I want from a system.

Council members need to be representative of the COMMUNITY, not just the LADDER. If you are #1 on the ladder but have only 1 post on the forum, you are not representative of the community - you aren't qualified for the position of a council member.

It's not even that hard to get noticed, all it takes is being mildly active on these forums and taking a bit of time out of your day to frequent the IRC chatroom. I have FAR from "dedicated my life" to Smogon - I have a 40 hour a week job, I go to school for 15 credit hours and I have a healthy social life. Yet as you can see, I co-head the UU subforum, I'm an IRC AOp, and I run one of the most popular official tournaments on Smogon. It is possible to get noticed in the community without putting in 24 hours a day worth of effort.

When someone complains that they won't get picked for the council because they are "too busy" to actively participate in the community, all I read is "I'm lazy" - which is the exact opposite person that we want shaping the tier. So yeah... PLEASE... make my job easier by complaining some more.

 

[NoJohns]

Just have a senate vote and a standard suspect test vote/popular vote. If the results deviate too much (say, 40%), then there should be some further testing of the suspect. Results should be biased towards the senate (e.g if Pikachu got a 70% senate ban but a 40% pop. ban, it would be banned).

 

[iSkittles]

Just have a senate vote and a standard suspect test vote/popular vote. If the results deviate too much (say, 40%), then there should be some further testing of the suspect. Results should be biased towards the senate (e.g if Pikachu got a 70% senate ban but a 40% pop. ban, it would be banned).

That's double the work for the same result since the community has a very large say on what the council votes on in the first place.

 

[jas61292]

When someone complains that they won't get picked for the council because they are "too busy" to actively participate in the community, all I read is "I'm lazy" - which is the exact opposite person that we want shaping the tier. So yeah... PLEASE... make my job easier by complaining some more.

Oh, I understand that view completely, and for the most part I agree. I just don't see how this is a better system though. To me, saying that the requirements are X and if you can do X then you get a vote is a much better system. Sure, if you are not lazy you can meet the requirements with this system. However, making the requirements does not actually give you anything. I'm not going to say being too busy to do it is an excuse, but not wanting to waste time doing something that in all likelihood won't get you anything at all, is a perfectly valid thought as far as I am concerned. Not wanting to do something that does nothing for you is not laziness, it is a natural reaction.

 

[Machi]

making the requirements does not actually give you anything.

You're right its not enough to have the qualities being looked for but also dedication. Dedication as noted because this will be a very demanding job and in order for the senate system to succeed it will need members who will be there. Its a great responsibility after all and given how much things can easily shake up on the UU tier, as we've just seen with the new additions, definitely there will be much demand to look into suspects and if you simply don't have the time it will all be for naught. It doesn't help to just have occasional battlers who come and go missing suspect tests to suddenly sprout out again after playing the latest round and spouting why X should be banned without prior knowledge or experience of just how the metagame has evolved from the previous tests or shake ups, so that it appears more to be advocating for a ban due to annoyance rather than concern for the health of the metagame.

IMO that was a problem with the old system we'd have members who came down from OU to experience UU and would suddenly advocate for ban of such and such without prior experience of the previous rounds without seeing how the metagame evolved to adjust to said mon reasonably, e.g. Victini (sure its still debatable but hey Bulky waters are pretty popular along now with Snorlax and Rock type resists from sand teams). To an extent it was acceptable in the old system but with the senate system given again how centralized decision making would be its only right that they are a regular presence able to gauge changes in the old and new metagames. More so when they may have to consider unbanning things, fortunately none at the moment really merit this, or why certain things may keep getting nominated and decide whether or not based on history it should be put to vote. In other words you may achieve a level of consistency with the senate better than the old system which quite a good gain. Sides if you put that much dedication into trying to be a senate member and do have the requirements being looked for - quality activity in forums, irc, and ladder - do you really think that wouldn't be noticed or possibly accommodated if you vied for a spot?

Edit: Honestly I do not understand the pessimism here its not as if the members have been chosen yet meaning all spots are perfectly open to all those who do make the requirements. Plus the system is still going to adjust meaning there may be ways for slots to open so no need to be negative about how the future will be.

 

[Banedon]

Council members need to be representative of the COMMUNITY, not just the LADDER. If you are #1 on the ladder but have only 1 post on the forum, you are not representative of the community - you aren't qualified for the position of a council member.

It's not even that hard to get noticed, all it takes is being mildly active on these forums and taking a bit of time out of your day to frequent the IRC chatroom. I have FAR from "dedicated my life" to Smogon - I have a 40 hour a week job, I go to school for 15 credit hours and I have a healthy social life. Yet as you can see, I co-head the UU subforum, I'm an IRC AOp, and I run one of the most popular official tournaments on Smogon. It is possible to get noticed in the community without putting in 24 hours a day worth of effort.

When someone complains that they won't get picked for the council because they are "too busy" to actively participate in the community, all I read is "I'm lazy" - which is the exact opposite person that we want shaping the tier. So yeah... PLEASE... make my job easier by complaining some more.

I can't help but feel mildly insulted by this post. Why should someone who has one post on the forums but be #1 on the ladder be less representative of the community than someone who has 1000 posts on the forums but #1 on the ladder? They're both a single member of the community. The person who has 1000 posts knows more about how other members of the community feel, but they are still single members of the community. Unless you are asking the senate members to vote how they think the community feels (which is a whole new can of worms), there's just no difference.

Let's also consider the possibility (fact, in my opinion) that many members of the community do not post on the forums. They also have less motivation to do so if they feel the current status quo is acceptable. For example, last generation during the Heracross meta, the final vote came really close even though far more people in the megathread were for banning Heracross, and similarly this gen with regards to Chansey.

What's more, you have to be good at English to post on the forums, and reading forums itself is a time commitment that will only get heavier if you choose to get involved in C&C, RMTs and IRC. With no offense meant to LonelyNess, you do post quite infrequently in the UU forums, and judging from what you wrote you don't have any other time commitments (I for example am actively playing two other games, both of which take more time than I spend on Pokemon).

Call me and others lazy if you want, but ultimately becoming a senator is a significant time investment, way more than getting voting reqs. Denying that is a joke. Please don't do it.

 

[kd24]

I can't help but feel mildly insulted by this post. Why should someone who has one post on the forums but be #1 on the ladder be less representative of the community than someone who has 1000 posts on the forums but #1 on the ladder? They're both a single member of the community. The person who has 1000 posts knows more about how other members of the community feel, but they are still single members of the community. Unless you are asking the senate members to vote how they think the community feels (which is a whole new can of worms), there's just no difference.

Let's also consider the possibility (fact, in my opinion) that many members of the community do not post on the forums. They also have less motivation to do so if they feel the current status quo is acceptable. For example, last generation during the Heracross meta, the final vote came really close even though far more people in the megathread were for banning Heracross, and similarly this gen with regards to Chansey.

What's more, you have to be good at English to post on the forums, and reading forums itself is a time commitment that will only get heavier if you choose to get involved in C&C, RMTs and IRC. With no offense meant to LonelyNess, you do post quite infrequently in the UU forums, and judging from what you wrote you don't have any other time commitments (I for example am actively playing two other games, both of which take more time than I spend on Pokemon).

Call me and others lazy if you want, but ultimately becoming a senator is a significant time investment, way more than getting voting reqs. Denying that is a joke. Please don't do it.

if you can't put in the time to ladder for a little bit every other day or so and just comment either on the forums or IRC every so often about the suspects and current uu metagame, then I don't know what else to tell you. hell, the significant time commitment hasnt even come into play yet and yet you act like the odds are insurmountable for you.

if you have other commitments that stop you from even applying, then so be it, but dont act like its our fault that this senate asks some activity from you. and yes, being part of the community means posting on the forums or on IRC, its just how it is and its been explained to you. idk how many more times you need it explained before you finally get that every part is equally important.

hell it took lonelyness 2 days to reach 1350 on ladder and it was done sparingly in just short hour bursts ... along with community presence and the ability to prove yourself with an app, this just is such a major non-issue.

so please stop acting like everyones conspiring against you, you have (had?) the same shot as everyone else but all youve done is complain about how its just not fair...

 

[Banedon]

I'm not complaining. I spend hours playing those two other games, I can shift more time to playing Pokemon. It's just that I don't think it's fair to call people "lazy" for not actively participating in the community, and to say that the senate system isn't more time-demanding than the old system is just not true.

Anyway I'll probably put together an application sometime. Is there an informal 1350 req to apply?

 

[Metric]

why would anyone want this job between all the time spent with consistently beating hax on the ladder and having to deal with a lot of shitty np arguments

could actually deprieve your life of all joy and at the very least give you bad acne

I'd just like to highlight this as it is probably the best post in this entire thread.