np: Doubles OU Stage 5 - Little Bunny Foo Foo | Gravity + Sleep Ban will Allow Spore!

Demantoid

APMS Founder
is a Top Tiering Contributor
Idea: Weight-Voting by Suspect-Ladder

So we've identified that current suspect-ladder system is flawed in that we get too much sway from tc-hunters/singles players/new players due to the low difficulty of the doubles ladder. While I do feel this can still be solved to a degree by removing tc-points, this does gimp doubles players from an avenue of being able to get badges.

I'll plug that idea before getting into the nuances of weight-voting, as I still like the idea of removing tc-points. While some people have tried to point out the case of players on the ladder who make fresh Smogon accounts just to vote in the suspect, I honestly don't think they're a problem because if you're fresh off the boat and making teams that can make reqs you deserve to be able to vote. Generally, this demographic of player has interacted with doubles resources heavily, or talked a lot in doubles chat, or asked someone for teambuilding help. Contrast that with a singles player who sees a suspect, grabs teams from the resident milkman and just plays 60 games with a team that is good, the prior case/player has much more metagame knowledge and is more of a part of the community.

But, without further ado...

What is weight-voting?

Weight-voting is an idea to give good players (and presumably, members of the community) more of a say in contrast with other groups. If we give certain players a heavier amount of say in deciding a suspect (say 3x, or even more or less depending on what one decides is appropriate) then we can say that #1 player gets 3x the vote of the average player, and #2 gets 2.8 x the vote of the average players, and so on and so on, maintaining a baseline of normal votes, but giving players more say proportional to their ladder position. Thus ladder can be more competitive and people'll keep laddering throughout a suspect test, and we let the best community members and those with the most metagame knowledge have more of a say.

Some mechanical clarifications:
  • The ladder wouldn't have elo decay
  • Weighting is decided at the end of the suspect, with a snapshot of the ladder
  • The rate at which value of a vote drops as you move from #1 to #w/e can be determined through different methods, ie exponentially, logarithmic-ally, or logistically, depending on what part of the ladder one feels differentiates players the most.
  • The cutoff for baseline vote-value could be anywhere (ie at #20 and below your vote is normal value, etc)
  • This could even allow us to make suspect reqs easier if we really wanted
Does anybody here actually like laddering for suspects?
 

Checkmater

It’s just us kittens left, and the rain is coming
is a Tiering Contributor
I enjoy laddering on suspects when I face good players, which would ideally happen under this system. The unfun part of laddering comes when you face ~1100 elo players running discharge spam in the early parts, not when you match up against someone like SamVGC and have a good match. But if you don't like playing mons at all then why are you voting in a suspect anyways?
 
Just cut the nonsense and do council only votes for everything. If you're not council and want to contribute then post something intelligent or earn a council spot.

If you don't think a council member is good enough/knowledgable enough to be voting, or that your opinion isn't being represented then make that known in a well thought out post or talk to a TL.

There's a reason baseball fans all over the world don't get together and vote on the rules.
 
LITERALLY the most recent thing that happened is a complete illustration of why your idea is horrible.
This is factually incorrect.
In the circumstance that happened recently, prior community decisions were the reason that the council decision was "rejected".
However, in the idea suggested by KyleCole there would never have been suspect tests to begin with, and nothing to compare the council vote to.
As a result, the most recent "incident" could not have occured, and therefore could not be used to substantiate his idea being horrible.
 

Fran

formerly Frania
is a Tiering Contributor
DPL Champion
yea kylecole your idea is horrible because its horrible. i think people using logic on the hashtag level definitely should get to vote over someone who has enough metagame knowleage that has been made tier leader.
 
A few things I've been thinking about as we wrap up gen6 in Doubles. I'm one of the people that definitely thinks AzuRachi is an unhealthy component of the metagame and I voted ban on both parts, (but would have also chosen Jirachi as more to blame), and I wasn't upset when the Council made their own decision. I would still be open to a final vote on both of these mons, similar to how it's been suggested in the thread, where people who voted in both tests got to vote on banning rachi, azu , both or neither. It's a controversial topic at the very least and I don't love the idea of "Well hey a lot of people thought this was a problem and a majority of council voted ban. Might as well ignore this and move on."

Moving forward the suspect system itself needs to be addressed and I kind of like the idea of the LC suspect nomination system. I don't trust the Doubles ladder in any form as a way of educating voters on a suspect and I have no problem allowing the council to make decisions as long as they are transparent on what they are doing, which I believe will be the case going forward. If this were the case I would like to see the council expand a few seats to hopefully capture more of the community's voices and be better representative of many viewpoints on tiering policy.
 

emma

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
DPL Champion
i definitely support council votes that are handed well as its clear its not difficult to get reqs and even when we suspected both azu & rachi, none got banned even though a majority of the community & council believes it to be a problem. a potential situation is when sm starts to have a council vote to ban jirachi (or azu). another option is to have a run off vote like miltank talked about.

i think the best way to handle council votes would have the tier leaders announce the suspect as usual and put up the thread and allow the community to post their thoughts. and then at the end of [insert time] the council would vote but would have to provide justification or post in the thread before hand.
 

Platinum God n1n1

the real n1n1
is a Tiering Contributor
Jirachi, after 4 months of discussion , a suspect , a suspect that was supposed to make the case for a resuspect , and an executive ban, it survives in DOU.

Only reason for all this was the council refusal to accept defeat.

The real problem is that everyone on the council takes a similar position on this. In all the past suspects the council was generally split and thus unable to cause a never ending debate like this

New council for the new generation

Our current suspect process is a pain in the ass to ladder. But it's proven to be effective
 

MajorBowman

wouldst thou like to live fergaliciously?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Jirachi, after 4 months of discussion , a suspect , a suspect that was supposed to make the case for a resuspect , and an executive ban, it survives in DOU.

Only reason for all this was the council refusal to accept defeat.

The real problem is that everyone on the council takes a similar position on this. In all the past suspects the council was generally split and thus unable to cause a never ending debate like this

New council for the new generation

Our current suspect process is a pain in the ass to ladder. But it's proven to be effective
Why are you so hung up on the fact that council members have similar opinions? They were all selected for council for multiple reasons and all deserve to be there. The fact that they have similar opinions is because they either came to similar conclusions independently or discussed it privately and came to a consensus as a group. You would be hard pressed to find a regular in the DOU community that thinks Jirachi + Azumarill is perfectly healthy and balanced, so I really don't understand why the general agreement that something should be done about them surprises you.

If you go and look at the last couple viability ranking votes you'll see that they, in fact, are not a hive mind hell bent on unanimity and really do have differing opinions. A sample size of 1 where they all happen to agree on something is not even close to statistically significant.
 
Last edited:

Platinum God n1n1

the real n1n1
is a Tiering Contributor
Why are you so hung up on the fact that council members have similar opinions? They were all selected for council for multiple reasons and all deserve to be there. The fact that they have similar opinions is because they either came to similar conclusions independently or discussed it privately and came to a consensus as a group. You would be hard pressed to find a regular in the DOU community that thinks Jirachi + Azumarill is perfectly healthy and balanced, so I really don't understand why the general agreement that something should be done about them surprises you.
Myself , check , ttree voted no ban on both . And those are the names that come to mind . There are plenty others

Compared to the skymin suspect ; azu rachi suspects were not even close. There was such outrage over the executive decision that after all this it is clear to me that the post artic/Kyle council has major flaws
 

MajorBowman

wouldst thou like to live fergaliciously?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Myself , check , ttree voted no ban on both . And those are the names that come to mind . There are plenty others

Compared to the skymin suspect ; azu rachi suspects were not even close. There was such outrage over the executive decision that after all this it is clear to me that the post artic/Kyle council has major flaws
I also voted no ban on both, that doesn't mean I don't think they are a problem. Forcing diversity into a leadership group solely for the sake of diversity leads to people less qualified than others getting picked just because they happen to think a certain way
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top