A nomination thread would be cool, as the average UUer is pretty smart and since the Senate is decided in part by community involvement, a nominations thread should at least have symbolic significance.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The UU Senate
- Thread starter JabbaTheGriffin
- Start date
- Status
If this Senate would streamline the suspect testing process and reduce the workload on Jabba then I'm all for it.
I can't support the senate nomination, however. Why should these applicants be nominated before they could apply? Everyone, including the lesser-known, but talented UU players, should have an equal chance to have their applications considered. Nom. thread is basically a popularity contest, and the smaller players wouldn't have a chance in being selected. I don't know what this extra step really accomplish other than facilitating "democratic procedures," lol.
However, I do support DetroitLolcat's motion to revise the ban decision. It is basically identical to what I mentioned earlier on the 1st page:
"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 can't support the senate nomination, however. Why should these applicants be nominated before they could apply? Everyone, including the lesser-known, but talented UU players, should have an equal chance to have their applications considered. Nom. thread is basically a popularity contest, and the smaller players wouldn't have a chance in being selected. I don't know what this extra step really accomplish other than facilitating "democratic procedures," lol.
However, I do support DetroitLolcat's motion to revise the ban decision. It is basically identical to what I mentioned earlier on the 1st page:
"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."
For example, I could nominate you. I have no idea what your alts are, and no idea if you are near the top of the ladder, but using my judgement of your posts and contributions to the forum, I trust you to make tiering decisions. Now if enough people nominate you, and if our nominations have some influence on Jabba's decision, then you can be reasonably confident that as long as you can climb the ladder, you'll be chosen on the senate. Then you can decide for yourself if the time taken is worth it.
What we get out of it is:
1) We can show appreciation to people who have been contributing to the forums;
2) We can motivate some people to play. I suspect some people self-select out of playing, because they don't think they'll get selected anyway;
3) Jabba has an easier time choosing senators (maybe).
May I suggest an alternate method?
1. Suspect voting goes on as usual. Those who rank high enough on the ladder are eligible to vote.
2. The UU Senate (which may need renaming in this scenario), through a unanimous decision, can veto any decision the voters pass. I'm not sure what the best method of electing the members would be, but I think they should have to be reelected regularly and maintain high rankings on the ladder. Each member, after each suspect vote, is required to give thorough explanations for their decisions.
1. Suspect voting goes on as usual. Those who rank high enough on the ladder are eligible to vote.
2. The UU Senate (which may need renaming in this scenario), through a unanimous decision, can veto any decision the voters pass. I'm not sure what the best method of electing the members would be, but I think they should have to be reelected regularly and maintain high rankings on the ladder. Each member, after each suspect vote, is required to give thorough explanations for their decisions.
I originally thought you meant to veto banning or not banning a suspect. Only vetoing bans would be biased against banning. It has all of the cons of both methods without the pros.
EDIT: Just to be clear, it's either a biased process or the communities decision is irrelevant...
EDIT: Just to be clear, it's either a biased process or the communities decision is irrelevant...
I like asdfrozen's idea - keeps the community more directly involved in the tiering process, while we have the Senate to intervene in certain emergency situations. I also agree with Heysup that Senate should not only be limited to veto ban decisions but also have the power to unanimously ban a mon if they find it necessary.
The only issue is the work load on Jabba and Suspect team in running both parties.
The only issue is the work load on Jabba and Suspect team in running both parties.
And that suspect voting was asked to be discontinued by the higher ups. Along with completely defeating the main purpose of the senate in trying to speed up the process - considering that part of the requirement is keeping a high ranking wouldn't there be a loop hole of the fact that they would simply overlap (why wouldn't they join the suspect voting).
At the moment I think its just best to let the senate play out as it is planned and just adjust after the first successful nominations and banning. Its not as if they aren't planning to re-adjust things depending on how the first one goes (at least the senate size might increase depending on the quality of applicants, which is fairly acceptable IMO because its clear more does not necessarily equals better - might be more representative but also in a negative sense if the quality is not checked). We're just not seeing yet whether it is efficient or not, at the very least Smogon did have a history of a council/closed off decision making which did work for most part or at least did define the site. After all people keep saying about theorymoon on suspect threads so I'd say its the same thing here we're just theorizing what is the worst case scenario etc. Or even worse pointing out that you do have a bias against such a system as because of your belief system you don't see it working, so you're pretty averse to giving it a chance.
Personally I would be more open to just letting the council play out since there are too many things to decide at the moment with possible sudden tier shake ups from introductions etc. However, I think late period I'd rather return the 'normal' suspect voting procedure that was had, from there you can un-ban or ban things. It seemed to work better for Gen IV to work on what was already built up by the previous system.
Edit: I think what the community can work on at the moment is redefining the UBER characteristics for sweeper, support, and wall that should help to give some objective basis. I mean clearly gen V is a totally different metagame from IV but people do still have to refer to the old UBER characteristics post that refer to Gen IV because there is a need for some type of basis. This I think needs to be established, would also help to keep the senate in check to a degree giving some objectivity or at least more even grounds for members to debate with them so that decisions won't seem too arbitrary as many fear. I mean in the end whether it is senate or plain open voting the question would generally boil down to whether they're being too preferential rather than objective, case in point is just looking at nomination threads.
Ok, first of all, I still disagree about the whole majority thing discussed last page, but since a lot as been talked about since then, I will just move on.
Personally, I think DetroitLolcat brought up one of the most important points, the size. Having any max or min size is stupid. If one is qualified, one should get a vote. And if one is not, one should not. Denying people votes because of arbitrary limits will not help make anything better, and neither will giving unqualified people votes, just to reach a limit. While I also don't love the whole appointment or lack of term things, getting rid of a size limit should be the first, and most important change made.
However, putting everything else aside, getting rid of the current system is a terrible idea for one main reason that Thatsjustpeachy brought up. When laddering gets the average battler nothing, why should they try hard? Sure people might still battle, but when winning means nothing, people stop trying to go all out and win. Not only does this decrease the competitiveness of the ladder, but it also screws up our tiers. The tiering system is based on the fact that the best Pokemon get used most. But if winning doesn't mean nearly as much, people will care less, and the usage stats could get thrown off. As such, I think whatever we do, we need to keep the ladder important. Whether this is part of the suspect system itself, or some new reward for good battlers, it probably won't matter. But there needs to be something.
That being said, the fact that the system is changing at all is just stupid. I don't know what this is about the highers up saying what has to happen, but I do know that whatever it is is bullshit. Normally I respect what the decisions of the people in charge of this site, and am very appreciative of what they do. But throwing out a perfectly good system for absolutely no good reason (and if there is a good reason, not telling anyone) is ridiculous. I don't care if you run the site, a decision like this should be made through the community. Stupid moves like this that will just lose people's confidence in Somgon.
I can't tell if this is serious or not, but basically, this is what I mean. While I personally don't feel this way, the average player might. When it comes down to the fact that you have no say in what happens and laddering means nothing, why should people choose to battle here?
Personally, I think DetroitLolcat brought up one of the most important points, the size. Having any max or min size is stupid. If one is qualified, one should get a vote. And if one is not, one should not. Denying people votes because of arbitrary limits will not help make anything better, and neither will giving unqualified people votes, just to reach a limit. While I also don't love the whole appointment or lack of term things, getting rid of a size limit should be the first, and most important change made.
However, putting everything else aside, getting rid of the current system is a terrible idea for one main reason that Thatsjustpeachy brought up. When laddering gets the average battler nothing, why should they try hard? Sure people might still battle, but when winning means nothing, people stop trying to go all out and win. Not only does this decrease the competitiveness of the ladder, but it also screws up our tiers. The tiering system is based on the fact that the best Pokemon get used most. But if winning doesn't mean nearly as much, people will care less, and the usage stats could get thrown off. As such, I think whatever we do, we need to keep the ladder important. Whether this is part of the suspect system itself, or some new reward for good battlers, it probably won't matter. But there needs to be something.
That being said, the fact that the system is changing at all is just stupid. I don't know what this is about the highers up saying what has to happen, but I do know that whatever it is is bullshit. Normally I respect what the decisions of the people in charge of this site, and am very appreciative of what they do. But throwing out a perfectly good system for absolutely no good reason (and if there is a good reason, not telling anyone) is ridiculous. I don't care if you run the site, a decision like this should be made through the community. Stupid moves like this that will just lose people's confidence in Somgon.
I can't tell if this is serious or not, but basically, this is what I mean. While I personally don't feel this way, the average player might. When it comes down to the fact that you have no say in what happens and laddering means nothing, why should people choose to battle here?
I'm curious and would like to hear what the higher ups say about it other than "we have decided to discontinue the suspect vote". It would also be nice to see if people support the council or the suspect votes through a poll. I wouldn't say that this system is bad or makes smogon look bad but it doesn't help to exclude the community from participating. Obviously we want to do more than post paragraph about why stuff should be banned since laddering under the new method won't do much for you.
Of course. If you weren't the very best, you didn't get anything. BUT, the very fact that the best got anything at all was a reason for all the players to strive to be the best. Without that, why should anyone strive to reach the top. What would be the point?
I'm not too sure the very best players were particularly after any sort of incentive:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3448226
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3450622&page=2
Looking at the voter identification you'd notice majority are badged members already so they technically already had so to speak 'prizes' or were moderators, simply put they certainly already have considerable influence precisely because they are the best players out there. Perhaps for newer members there is more of an incentive though its not as if there are that much new members actually able to participate in the actual voting. At best new players or basically those who never made the rankings in the end participate mainly through nominations or arguing in the suspect thread, don't see that as too much of a change from what is being proposed. Given that some proposals before were already to limit the nomination thread by giving ratings requirements I'd say that would have lessened the avenue for the rest of the community further anyways, meaning one way or another things were in a sense becoming more closed off.
Anycase least we know who the possible candidates will be based on the history of those who've qualified for voting.
You don't see a difference between new players having a slim chance of directly participating and zero chance? Again, term periods with some form of election would make the senate a much better system.
You'll also have to consider that there is efficiency in not having someone elected or tenured. Namely that they are more or less better protected from bandwagon effects or herding behaviour, they're not particularly out to please the general public but rather for the common good (a desirable metagame).
I would not necessarily say that new players have a zero chance with the current system its not as if it is set in stone that they cannot submit their application as long as they CAN reach the necessary rating requirements but more importantly intelligently reason out why she/he should be a senate member. After all would you necessarily trust a senate member whose ranking is way below yours? Or one who cannot debate well? There are newer members who can debate well but perhaps ratings will have to be weighed in relative to the quality of application, but I do think Jabba would be considerate in this regard given his experience with special application to voting rights. Besides another thing to consider with new members is that they are new. Just how familiar are they with the Smogon policies and systems etc so that you could trust them with decisions to be in line with the site. Then you also have to consider why voting systems may implement seniority or nationality restrictions because clearly outsiders or newbies while they can inject new ideas may not necessarily be too attune to what the community is necessarily aiming for or has built as an ideal its best to let them wait and learn, just how familiar are many of the new members anyways with the smogon policies and philosophy? We do not have survey figures to empirically and objectively gauge that only perceptions which in the end do not hold much ground.
Though I do see your point regarding tenure but as I've said earlier just let the first senate round play out and then begin to consider how tenure should be handled. Clearly it shouldn't be too short but at the same time too long however this is not something immediately measurable until the actual process begins. Since the way things are set up we don't exactly have a suspect period as was had in voting but through community opinion in a thread, that when it probably reaches a good enough threshold of discussion will be seriously deliberated upon for banning. It would be absurd to say tenure should be based after X amount of bans. While it would be hasty to proclaim tenure should be after X amount of time given that what if the period that the people in senate were was not particularly as hectic as say another period, perhaps due to shake ups from DW releases or usage tiering. Or another possibility is that certain suspects might be far more controversial and will definitely need time to be properly examined to the point that it may come close to the tenure creating pressure for the senate to possibly reach a hasty conclusion. As I'd said before I think its best to wait at least for the first few senate proceedings before deciding on certain aspects.
Though I would say that there will be need to keep chatlogs of the senate deliberation to better understand what went on with the banning, that should gives members an idea of how efficient or intelligently handled it was. From there I think it would be much easier to make judgements regarding the system.
I thought that it would work like this:
If you played well enough, you would be added on to the initial five (or whatever number, hopefully a larger one) in rounds following it.
And yes, people do play to get badges. They incentivize good play.
Additionally though, I was referring to the effect this could have on usage stats. I'm not saying that people will stop playing. I am saying people will stop trying as hard to win. This decreases the competitiveness of the ladder. In addition, when people have less incentive to win, they are more likely to make teams that are not necessarily the best. When our whole tiering system is based on the fact that people trying to win use the best Pokemon most often, this could cause a major problem.
How is this as a suggestion? If the Senate votes in favor of banning a suspect, every non-Senate user on the ladder with a rating of 1350 (Or maybe 1400 if 1350 is too low) or higher must also vote on whatever the Senate deemed broken, and they also have to vote in favor of banning that suspect. If the Senate votes to not ban a suspect, non-Senators will have no say on that decision. This could provide some incentive for people to continue to ladder and keep it somewhat competitive, as opposed to the scenario where the UU Senate has all of the power.
Intrinsic rewards are way more effective than extrinsic, so this is kind of a moot topic. The point of having a ladder is so that people have incentive. Having rankings is incentive enough for people to play.
Seeing as how we have had no real valid suggestions to replace the senate-style decision making, can we also stop talking about that? Talk about broken mons.
Seeing as how we have had no real valid suggestions to replace the senate-style decision making, can we also stop talking about that? Talk about broken mons.
How about we bring up another issue?
I am not sure if this is the way OU has effects on our tier, but I am not happy that we lose some of our toys, just because there is an incredibly dominate force in the tiers. I am referring to the rise of Celebi and Gastradon of course into OU. Celebi was getting some grief so I won't comment their, but how Gastradon could be considered OU is far beyond me. I doubt that anyone here (or in RU for that matter) would say that Gastradon should have risen up.
While I am not happy with certain pokes coming down, I find it very irratating that I lost Celebi on my team, just because he is good against a certain strategy in another tier, the same strategy that probably played a role Darmanitan's fall.
Is there a better way to do this, or is it going to be more of a "deal with it" situation?
I am not sure if this is the way OU has effects on our tier, but I am not happy that we lose some of our toys, just because there is an incredibly dominate force in the tiers. I am referring to the rise of Celebi and Gastradon of course into OU. Celebi was getting some grief so I won't comment their, but how Gastradon could be considered OU is far beyond me. I doubt that anyone here (or in RU for that matter) would say that Gastradon should have risen up.
While I am not happy with certain pokes coming down, I find it very irratating that I lost Celebi on my team, just because he is good against a certain strategy in another tier, the same strategy that probably played a role Darmanitan's fall.
Is there a better way to do this, or is it going to be more of a "deal with it" situation?
Deal with it. It is the only semi-objective system that makes sense for power measurement and it's based on the competitive aspect of the ladders. If you want to increase your odds of winning, you want to make the best team. To make the best team, you'll use the best Pokemon (or combination of Pokemon). Those Pokemon are shown in the statistics. Gastrodon is deemed more powerful than every UU Pokemon by the OU players, so it is therefore it must be tiered as such. We can't just remove our consistency for no reason.
I wasn't in UU last gen, only coming to it this one because not only does it look interesting, but weather wars majorly blows. I definitely get what your saying, but it still makes me groan. I always thought pokemon that shook up the UU tier a lot, or pokemon that weren't that good in OU would determine what falls and what doesn't.
Also, since I have a hard time fitting Spirtomb on my team, does anyone else know another decent check that can safely switch into Alakazam? (preferably one that can outspeed it with a scarf, but unlike heracross, doesn't die to his stab)?
Also, since I have a hard time fitting Spirtomb on my team, does anyone else know another decent check that can safely switch into Alakazam? (preferably one that can outspeed it with a scarf, but unlike heracross, doesn't die to his stab)?
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.
- Status