MM2 wanted to avoid bias by asking anti-ban users to have a say in the paragraphs, but Hugen didn't believe that was necessary and trusted their judgement. There was going to be bias regardless of how the vote went, though. If MM2 did not believe a no-ban vote was qualified, had I read it, I likely would have saw otherwise as I was also no-ban.I've read through this thread and the entire time I've been wondering "whose idea was it to appoint two openly biased mods with the same opinion to read the paragraphs?" Sure there was someone with no bias in one direction or the other, but just think about it when you watch the news and there's a discussion on a matter. Do you really think that one person's unbiased thoughts are going to have any sort of impact on the other two? Chances are the person who has no stance on this issue in either direction will get crowded out by the other two. I believe this was the case in the stag suspect testing review where MM2 and FireBurn were pro-ban and Jibaku was neutral on this matter. Why couldn't either one of MM2 or FireBurn been replaced with someone like shrang, who is a trusted user and was on the anti-ban side of the argument (based on what I read in Jibaku's post). This way there would have been someone who was pro-ban, anti-ban, and neutral on the matter of Shadow Tag and would have definitely yielded a more accurate depiction of the suspect test. This has left me completely dumbfounded that the situation was handled the way it was.
In the future, I really don't think raising the reqs will do much in weeding out the less skilled and informed players from the skilled and informed ones, but simply using common sense in choosing who to do the reviews of the votes would aid this issue tremendously. If I followed the suspect thread and heard who was doing the reviewing, I would've said fuck it they're gonna ban ST regardless of what I do.
The tier leader bans anything he thinks could potentially broken. Then, they retest the banned mons one by one to see what's really broken. After a testing period, a council of around 10 or 12 vote if the suspect in question should be banned or not. Not everything gets sent back to BL, things do get to stay in UU (Mega Zam, Haxorus, Mega Doom and Hydreigon got to stay). The main plus is it gets the really broken things out quickly. The downside is you could potentially ban a whole group that balances each other out, and thus makes the tier balanced as a whole.I've never really looked into it. How does it work, may I ask?
ou's coil is waaay higher (like actually difficult for non-top players), and they have a ladder thats actually halfway serious. our ladder is, "of lesser quality". raising coil wont improve anything. the only thing it will do is add an extra two hours to a very easy grind. the players that its supposed to "weed out can just steal a sample team or something and play at times no good players are on. it would just make it so they have to spend more time. paragraphs are probably the best thing to have happened all suspect.xJownage I agree with the need for a more objective standard for suspect reqs. Out of curiosity, what do you think of my idea of requiring a high-ish level replay of the suspect in question in addition to normal reqs? I honestly think that the TLs had the right idea in that simply good at laddering isn't enough to be able to determine whether or not something is uncompetitive, but they just need a more objective way to understand it. I asked myself this when I came up with the idea: "Do I want someone who has never used mega mawile or aegislash or baton pass making the decision on whether or not it belongs in the tier?"(those were suspects I personally participated in). I honestly believe that you simply cannot understand what a pokemon or move does unless you actually use it yourself, even if it's "obviously broken/uncompetetive" like OHKO moves, evasion, or Mega Salemance (for OU, mega dragon should be fine here obv). This goes double for more subtle aspects of the metagame whose potential power/uncompetitiveness is much more subtle like Deo-S or Shadow Tag.
As for COIL, I highly recommend taking up a discussion with Antar, but allow me first to stage a brief defense of the rating system. COIL is a logarithmic function(this one to be exact: C=40*GXE*2^(-B/N)) based on number of battles and your GXE. For a given GXE X, COIL will hit an asymptote of approximately 40 * GXE after about B * 10 battles (e.g. for a GXE of 60 and a B of 40, it will take about 400 battles to hit 2600, give or take 50), and for all intents and purposes stops rising there. Given how a logarithmic function is shaped, a higher GXE will allow you to surpass this asymptote much, much faster.
The main difficulty of the COIL system is that it requires TLs to essentially predict the "baseline" GXE for players they deem competent enough to vote. It is a well known fact that the longer a ladder is up between GXE resets, the more the average GXE/ELO will inflate as more players start playing the ladder. Most suspects last about 2 weeks, but this one lasted for far longer, making it reasonable that the uber TLs underestimated the COIL needed to distinguish "competent players". Compounding this is the fact that the ubers ladder is notorious for attracting bad players, which magnifies this issue even further because there is a fairly solid base of really awful ladderers to further inflate the average GXE. This issue can be adequately resolved by simply raising the COIL requirement and/or reducing the suspect test length.
Addressing your second issue is a bit harder though, as you're basically saying that it takes too long for skilled players to hit the GXE requirements. This would imply that the constant B was set too high by the TLs (lower B means fewer battles needed to asymptote). Lowering B would basically encourage players to not stay on any one alt too long and switch alts often to try and get the win streak needed to obtain reqs, while making it too high brings about the problem you mentioned. Obviously, the length of the suspect test also needs to be considered when determining this value.
So yeah, that's the COIL system in a nutshell, along with the cause of the issues experienced by players and the methods for fixing them (please please please yell at me if I got any of that horribly wrong). I don't think there's anything wrong with COIL itself, but it does require TLs to both have a good head for mathmatics AND have a good idea of what the suspect ladder is going to look like. Setting all the right variables is pretty difficult to the point where it's borderline arbitrary, but that's probably going to be an issue no matter what rating system you use.
Proof that COIL is perfectly capable of weeding out lesser players:
Antar's (probably better) explanation of COIL: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/coil-explained.3508013/
im saying that they can easily spend an extra hour on this bad ladder. in our situation, coil does not equate to not only skill, but most certainly not knowledge of the suspect.ApplepieFTW So basically what you are saying is that any mediocre player can obtain any GXE he/she desires simply by stealing an RMT and laddering at a certain time of day? For any given COIL, there is a minimum GXE needed to obtain it, or else you simply will not reach it period.
Hmmmm... There seems to be two separate issues here. One can be knowledgeable of a suspect without being skilled and vise versa. I agree that COIL alone has very little to do with someone's knowledge of the suspect, as one can easily make a competent ladder team that doesn't involve whatever is being suspected and as long as said suspect isn't obscenely overused on the ladder (ala OU Genesect), will probably do reasonably well even if they have zero knowledge of how the suspect works. This is why I proposed requiring voters to submit a replay showing the suspect being used in a high-ish level replay along with their vote a few posts back.im saying that they can easily spend an extra hour on this bad ladder. in our situation, coil does not equate to not only skill, but most certainly not knowledge of the suspect.