this forum is dead and i wanna argue (on Stage 3-5 pushback)

[Jumpman16]

I couldn't help but see Syberia's opposition in my stage 3-5 Voters thread to how Aeolus and I have decided to arrive at a final tiering for Latias. Despite the encouragement to repost his concerns elsewhere he has not yet done so, so here is what he posted:

Why are those who consistently showed pokemon excellence by earning voting rights in the previous two stages being arbitrarily denied voting rights this time around? Throughout this whole process it seems like you are looking for anything but the consensus of the Smogon community as a whole. If I was a voter in either of the previous two stages (I did not even attempt to be, largely because I question the integrity of the entire process), I would take this as a huge slap in the face - essentially, you're telling them that you don't agree with their interpretation, and think a "fresh pool" of voters would somehow do it better.

I'll take an infraction, but I cannot and do not put any faith in this process at all. Nor do others.

Note that this came three days after Aeolus and my decision to allow tiering contributors the chance to vote regardless of recent involvement with either the Standard or Suspect metagames. While capefeather's subsequent post stated much of what I would have, I will give my own take on your (and apparently others') thoughts so you and those same others can weigh in appropriately.

First, though Aeolus and I anticipated that we would have to trumpet our encouragement of special permission paragraphs, it seems we were either not clear enough or not fully appreciative of the level of skepticism about our encouragement. This is really at the core of your gripe, since we neither expect to deny ultimate voting rights to anyone who applies for special permission nor plan to grant those right to "Tiering Contributors" or anyone else who one feels has "showed pokemon excellence" over a given timeframe.

Second, you note "Pokemon excellence" as though it could only apply to those who have played Suspect in the last few months. How is that necessarily true? The skills of those who put their efforts forth on the Standard Ladder for the first three months of the year are well represented in List A. Lists B and C are from Stage 3-3 and 3-4, respectively, and Stage 3-3 was a month long, and Stage 3-4 was barely over two weeks long. You tell me which group of people actually "consistently showed Pokemon excellence" among these three groups.

Third, you then make the broader claim that we have striven to avoid the consensus of the Smogon community. While there are a few ways I could answer this, I will just ask you how Aeolus and my decision to poll a much, much broader section of the community for Stage 3-5 somehow does not appease those of you who think we aren't interested in a larger consensus. Or did you not assume that we wouldn't at all consider the results of the Stage 3-4 vote when we render our final decision?

Of course, if you did actually want to make the argument that we should be interested in the opinion of the entire "Smogon community as a whole", you can, but you've tried this before and I'm pretty sure this has more to do with your views on the "integrity of the entire process" than anything.

Anyway, the fact remains that the opinions and votes on Latias in the last Suspect test are in rather stark contrast to how she has been received in Standard, even including the last three months (which is exactly what we're considering). I honestly think it would be more curious if Aeolus and I *didn't* acknowledge this anomaly.

 

[Syberia]

First, though Aeolus and I anticipated that we would have to trumpet our encouragement of special permission paragraphs, it seems we were either not clear enough or not fully appreciative of the level of skepticism about our encouragement. This is really at the core of your gripe, since we neither expect to deny ultimate voting rights to anyone who applies for special permission nor plan to grant those right to "Tiering Contributors" or anyone else who one feels has "showed pokemon excellence" over a given timeframe.

Judging by what was said in Aeolus' post, you're making them prove that they're not biased. I don't see how that's even relevant, as of course they're going to be "biased" in some loose definition of the word, as Latias hasn't changed much since the last time she was voted on. Just because someone didn't vote previously doesn't change the fact that if they're good enough to qualify, they have undoubtedly used her enough in the past to more likely than not form an opinion that's as strong as those who actually voted before.

And of course, I will always take issue with a process in which one or two people get to make the call as to who gets to vote or not, regardless of what criteria are being used. That has been my main objection since the beginning.

Second, you note "Pokemon excellence" as though it could only apply to those who have played Suspect in the last few months. How is that necessarily true? The skills of those who put their efforts forth on the Standard Ladder for the first three months of the year are well represented in List A. Lists B and C are from Stage 3-3 and 3-4, respectively, and Stage 3-3 was a month long, and Stage 3-4 was barely over two weeks long. You tell me which group of people actually "consistently showed Pokemon excellence" among these three groups.

You and Aeolus obviously seem to think that those who get voting rights are "more qualified" than those who don't, or else you wouldn't be letting them vote and preventing others from doing so. I question any sudden reversal of long-standing policy, especially one that looks like it's being done "on a whim" because the results weren't what you expected.

"Let's have a new election because Obama won, we've never had a black president before so that's clearly anomalous."

Third, you then make the broader claim that we have striven to avoid the consensus of the Smogon community. While there are a few ways I could answer this, I will just ask you how Aeolus and my decision to poll a much, much broader section of the community for Stage 3-5 somehow does not appease those of you who think we aren't interested in a larger consensus. Or did you not assume that we wouldn't at all consider the results of the Stage 3-4 vote when we render our final decision?

You're still ignoring the part of the community which you've considered "most qualified" in the past. That alone raises questions of a potential hidden agenda.

Of course, if you did actually want to make the argument that we should be interested in the opinion of the entire "Smogon community as a whole", you can, but you've tried this before and I'm pretty sure this has more to do with your views on the "integrity of the entire process" than anything.

Yes. I fail to see how this invalidates those claims, though.

Anyway, the fact remains that the opinions and votes on Latias in the last Suspect test are in rather stark contrast to how she has been received in Standard, even including the last three months (which is exactly what we're considering). I honestly think it would be more curious if Aeolus and I *didn't* acknowledge this anomaly.

Acknowledge it, sure. Maybe even re-vote the "odd ones" a few months down the line. But definitely not by forcing previous voters to prove they're not "biased," when virtually nothing about Latias has changed since the previous stage so opinions formed there are probably still valid.


I hate drawn-out arguments, and it's obvious enough that I'm not going to change your minds on this, so barring any new developments this will be my last post on the issue. I'm 99% sure that most of the people who agree with me don't have the ability to post in this forum, so keep that in mind before you go criticizing my "lack of support."

 

[Jumpman16]

Don't worry, I would criticize your inability to message Aeolus or myself privately, if not post here yourself when Haunter suggested you should, before implicating anyone else or suggesting that your supposed contingent is not as large as you would have us believe. Though you have to admit—it'd be pretty darn sad if there are indeed soooo many users who disagree with how Stage 3-5 is being administrated, yet the administrator wouldn't know about this popular dissent until he dug up a deleted, week-old, would-be martyrpost himself, after hoping he wouldn't have to be the one to actually bring it up again. I mean, it would almost be...like...nothing would ever get done about our tyranny if it didn't actually invite and encourage concerns and questions!

Judging by what was said in Aeolus' post, you're making them prove that they're not biased. I don't see how that's even relevant, as of course they're going to be "biased" in some loose definition of the word, as Latias hasn't changed much since the last time she was voted on. Just because someone didn't vote previously doesn't change the fact that if they're good enough to qualify, they have undoubtedly used her enough in the past to more likely than not form an opinion that's as strong as those who actually voted before.

There you go again, ascribing a negative connotation to "bias". Aeolus stated that we had a "goal of choosing the freshest, least biased, and sufficiently experienced people possible". The only other mention of "bias" was in a very minor rephrase of "unbiased" contained in our bolded and seemingly mandatory trumpeting of encouragement of special permission PMs. Unless you think that we both don't know by now that total, absolute lack of bias is impossible, you're not nearly as good at "judging" our intentions as you think. The rest of your issue here has already been addressed by my assurance that we are going to consider both 3-4 and 3-5 results.

And of course, I will always take issue with a process in which one or two people get to make the call as to who gets to vote or not, regardless of what criteria are being used. That has been my main objection since the beginning.

It's not a very productive objection so I kind of wish you'd either not post things you expect to get infracted for or take them seriously when a mod suggests you voice them elsewhere. Fence-sitters don't accomplish anything.

You and Aeolus obviously seem to think that those who get voting rights are "more qualified" than those who don't, or else you wouldn't be letting them vote and preventing others from doing so. I question any sudden reversal of long-standing policy, especially one that looks like it's being done "on a whim" because the results weren't what you expected.

To whatever extent you question reversals of long-standing policy I doubly question the very literally sudden perception of a pokemon that Standard has tolerated for over a year without much complaint. Unless, of course, the members of some evidently large "Latias is uber!" unit are the same large number of people who you claim are against what we're doing with Stage 3-5. That sure would be unfortunate...

And we're not "preventing" anyone from doing anything. You can ignore or misinterpret my 'we neither expect to deny ultimate voting rights to anyone who applies for special permission nor plan to grant those right to "Tiering Contributors" or anyone else who one feels has "showed pokemon excellence" over a given timeframe' all you like, but I'm just going to copy/paste it from now on when the situation calls for it.

"Let's have a new election because Obama won, we've never had a black president before so that's clearly anomalous."

If you'd like to directly question the anomaly of Latias being consider widely OU for over a year yet more "uber" the less Suspects are in a metagame where it has qwithout question never been the most "Suspect" pokemon, you can do so without analogies that fail on their own. ("How many black people have run for president before" is one of many matches I could flick at your strawman without any mental effort whatsoever.) And I wouldn't think that I have to point out that part of the reason we're able to consider Jan-Mar Standard data is because a real stage 3-5 would be identical in subject matter, but I guess I have to do so again.

You're still ignoring the part of the community which you've considered "most qualified" in the past. That alone raises questions of a potential hidden agenda.

'we neither expect to deny ultimate voting rights to anyone who applies for special permission nor plan to grant those right to "Tiering Contributors" or anyone else who one feels has "showed pokemon excellence" over a given timeframe'

That took even less time than I thought—we're not "ignoring" anyone, Syberia. And hell, the opportunity to fairly use three months of data instead of one is almost reason enough for anyone to consider the List A group the "most qualified".

Yes. I fail to see how this invalidates those claims, though.

Questioning the integrity of a two-year-old process is kind of pointless, that's why.

Acknowledge it, sure. Maybe even re-vote the "odd ones" a few months down the line. But definitely not by forcing previous voters to prove they're not "biased," when virtually nothing about Latias has changed since the previous stage so opinions formed there are probably still valid.

'did you not assume that we wouldn't at all consider the results of the Stage 3-4 vote when we render our final decision?'

Anyway, if this is really all you have to say, you could have PMed Aeolus or myself instead of posting something you felt was infraction-worthy and then not bring it up again when encouraged even when you know how many people you evidently are speaking for. I don't think mine is the criticism you'll have to worry about if that's actually true.