Jump to content
  • 0

Suspect testing support - forums and in game


Dannnno

Question

The overarching theme of this suggestion is that we need better in-game tiering support - the way we will get this is through multiple features being implemented.  Please do not lock this for 'multiple suggestions', the only way this suggestion works is if all of these are considered as a unit.

 

I think we can safely acknowledge that there are several issues with the way tiering currently happens:

  1. Some people feel as though their voices don't matter in tiering discussions
  2. The way tiering decisions are made is somewhat obscure
  3. The people ultimately responsible for making the final decisions in tiering have not been selected by either the community or staff - they are largely self-appointed and self-regulating
  4. The tier lists are 'official' but aren't.  As long as the staff refuses to recognize a list as the 'official' list then there will be disagreement
  5. Probably more that aren't coming to me off the top of my head

Now a couple of points to address.

  • I don't believe that everyone has the right to vote in a tiering decision - that would be moronic.  In competitive games some people are objectively better than others, and people who are not at a certain level of skill should not be allowed to make deciding votes.  While they can certainly voice their opinion/arguments, they do not have the qualifications to make the decision
  • I personally agree with the vast majority of tiering decisions that have been made under the current system.  This is not an attack at anyone who currently or has ever ran one of these lists.  However I think it is important that the methods of choosing our tiering leaders, as well as the methods of the decision making process, are clearly understood by the competitive community.  I don't care if everyone agrees with the decisions made, or if the decisions made are 'good' ones.  I care that they were made for a specific reason, and that everyone is able to identify the reason

So how do we address these issues?

 

For the first one - we need to clearly define how people can give input on tiering decisions, what sort of input is acceptable, and who can give input. 

 

For the second one - we need to clearly define what makes a pokemon 'broken' or 'overpowered' in a certain meta, and we need to clearly define who judges these criteria.

 

For the third one - we need to have a system where the competitive community is able to select their leaders.  More on this in a bit.

 

For the fourth one - it is fine and dandy that the staff won't make tiering decisions - in fact I think it is a great call by them.  That being said I think they do need to be more involved with the decision making process.  An official list(s) needs to be created, and official 'caretakers' of the list(s) need to be selected (see number 3).

 

So how can we do this?

 

In game support for suspect testing.

 

This requires a couple of steps.

 

1. Deciding what to suspect test:

[spoiler]Just like right now, members will suggest pokemon that should be moved from tier A to tier B for X reasons.  Other members may post their arguments for or against, as we currently do.  After X amount of time (would likely vary case by case) certain members (see problem 3) of the community, in conjunction with Competition Alley moderators, would decide if the suggested pokemon should be:

  • quickbanned
  • suspect tested
  • left alone  

One of these individuals will post a thread explaining their decision, as well as what comes next.

 

If something is deemed so incredibly OP that it must be quickbanned then they will give their justification, as well as the vote for/against the decision (ie if X number of people were for, and Y number were against).  This thread should then be locked to avoid flaming/shitposting/crying/etc.

 

If something is to be suspect tested a similar thread will be made outlining the characteristics of the pokemon that merit its suspect testing.  This thread should also indicate the dates (probably a month, although it'll depend on how much community involvement there is) for which suspect testing can occur.  This thread should remind players of the major points to consider:

  • Was the object of the suspect testing (ie curselax) hard to counter?  And if so, why?
  • In order to counter it did you have to structure a majority of your team around it?  IE, if the thing being suspected (ie curselax) were banned, would your team look substantially different (in moveset/EVs/IVs/Nature/pokemon choice)?
  • Was this pokemon ubiquitous in the tier?  Meaning do you see it everywhere?
  • If you used this pokemon, why?  While using it did you notice that this pokemon could consistently perform in the suspect manner? Did you notice that most people had a hard time countering and dealing with this pokemon? Did you notice that several pokemon were almost always used for (seemingly) the purpose of dealing with this pokemon?
  • More that I haven't thought of.

This thread should remain open in order for players to post their valid feedback (ie feedback that covers the points above).

 

If something is not to be suspect tested, a different thread will be made explaining why, as well as the vote.  This thread should be locked to avoid flaming/shitposting/crying/etc.[/spoiler]

 

2. The actual testing:

[spoiler]Once something has been selected for suspect testing we should probably, you know, test it.  In game ranked battles in the suspected tier will be reset so that everyone starts fresh.  All battles conducted in the time frame of the suspect testing will be a competition for the right to be heard on the subject.  All members who have a rank above XXX (I'd say top 20% or something, depending on how many people participated) earn the right to participate in the final vote.  Other members may still give their valid feedback (see above) but will not be allowed to vote.

 

All tournament battles in the suspected tier should count towards their ranking for suspect testing purposes.

 

There should also be an explanation in game for suspect testing.  The ranked battle interface should have a tooltip explaining what suspect testing is (perhaps linking to a thread on the forums explaining it all) as well as what is being suspect tested and for what reason.[/spoiler]

 

3. Voting:

[spoiler]Once the suspect testing period has been completed, a new thread for this pokemon will be opened.  For some time (I'd say 1 week) members will have their last chance to voice their valid arguments for or against the ban.  At any point in this period members who have earned the right to vote may cast their vote, yes/no.  They have the right to change this at any time.  This could be in game or on the forums, I'm not sure which would be easier either logistically or programming wise.    If at the end of the time period there is a tie, members of the tier council (see below) will discuss and vote among themselves, with their final verdict being announced within some amount of time (lets say 24 or 48 hours).[/spoiler]

 

4. The ban and aftermath:

[spoiler] Once the ban has been decided it should come into effect immediately - CA moderators should have the in game ability to edit ban lists for various tiers.

 

Afterwards rankings will have to be adjusted - I'm not positive on how.  There are a few options:

  1. If the ban was successful, reset the ladder to reflect the new meta
  2. If the ban was successful, use the previous rankings and suspect test rankings to decide new rankings.  Exact methods would have to be discussed.
  3. If the ban was unsuccessful, use some combination of the original rankings and suspect test rankings to determine new rankings.  Exact methods would have to be discussed

Of course, anything that has been banned may be suspect tested again - however there should be a time period of at least 1 month from its banishment before it can be brought up again[/spoiler]

 

Other points:

  • There should never be suspect testing in more than one tier at a time, and there should never be more than one thing suspected at a time
  • There should always be a time period (say 1 month) after a ban before a new pokemon can be suspect tested - the meta should be allowed to settle first
  • The ruling council should not be static - if someone becomes inactive or no longer meets certain qualifications they should be removed.

Ruling Council:

They should be selected from an elite tier of players - for arguments sake lets say the top 100 players.  From there either a ranking tournament is held among those interested, with the top X (where X is odd) players becoming members of the council, or a vote amongst competitive players of a certain rank (lets say top 20%) for some odd number of council members.  This selection should not be for life - I'd say every 6 months or more frequently as needed.

 

There should also be some method by which the players or the council can remove members of the council if they are found to suck at tiering.

 

Final comments:

I don't care if you feel that most PokeMMO players are unqualified to make tiering decisions.  In fact I agree that most probably have no idea what they are doing with that regard.  However I feel that it is very important that the PokeMMO community makes its own tiering decisions, as shitty as they may be.

 

If you do not participate in the PokeMMO competitive meta, you don't get to vote.  Sorry Senile.  "However I feel that it is very important that the PokeMMO community makes its own tiering decisions, as shitty as they may be."  We make our own bed, so we can sleep in it.  

 

Please leave your feedback below

 

EDIT: This would also be greatly helped by the creation of a 'Competitive Discussion' subforum in CA.

Edited by Dannnno
Link to comment

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

the wall of text

 

Nice suggestion, +1, I especially agree that tiering needs official support in order to be legitimate. We also need to ensure that the community believes that the people making the decisions are qualified to do so. So there needs to be some kind of democratic process about this.

 

As a tangential note: maybe we could use team representation to do the voting. For instance, teams who have seen X amount of success (maybe you just have to make it to the semis or quarterfinals in the team tournament) get a seat on the council with a spokesperson who casts their vote. This ensures a couple of things:

 

1. That most competitive players get to discuss tiering decisions with someone who cares about what they think to some degree and won't flame them or ignore them for disagreeing with a certain decision. This is important because teams usually know their players well enough to say, "Well, this guy isn't very good/knowledgeable about the meta, I'm going to have to disregard his opinion when voting". I believe that discussion tiering decisions on some smaller level might be more productive than a bunch of people who don't know each other raging/overposting in forum posts all day, which has been a serious hindrance to progress as of late.

 

2. That all active and skilled competitive players can influence a vote without one group of people becoming dominant in the discussion. People who are inactive in-game won't be able to exert undue influence, because even if they join a team they are just one of many who get a say in the decisions. 

 

3. This plan is egalitarian and decentralized by nature, but it fits with Dannnno's suggestion to have the tiering decisions be made by the community even if they sometimes make the wrong decision: it's not unreasonable to suspect that some teams might make a bad decision. But it seems unlikely that every team will choose a spokesperson who makes bad/uninformed decisions on a regular basis or disregards input from teammates. Even if this did happen, the teams would still have control over who speaks for them, and could oust a spokesman who ends up acting like a dumbshit.

 

My idea isn't perfect but it might work. To me it seems better than relying on the "top players" because they may all be using some strategy (e.g. Curselax) that allows them to win frequently, giving them a bias in favor of it. In fact, if there are any strategies of the PokeMMO meta that are really "Uber", you should expect the best players in the game to be using them frequently to win.

Link to comment
  • 0

As a tangential note: maybe we could use team representation to do the voting. For instance, teams who have seen X amount of success (maybe you just have to make it to the semis or quarterfinals in the team tournament) get a seat on the council with a spokesperson who casts their vote. This ensures a couple of things:

 

Would this be instead of or in addition to a tournament/voting process for the other 'council' members?  How frequently would these members be changed, monthly?

 

1. That most competitive players get to discuss tiering decisions with someone who cares about what they think to some degree and won't flame them or ignore them for disagreeing with a certain decision. This is important because teams usually know their players well enough to say, "Well, this guy isn't very good/knowledgeable about the meta, I'm going to have to disregard his opinion when voting". I believe that discussion tiering decisions on some smaller level might be more productive than a bunch of people who don't know each other raging/overposting in forum posts all day, which has been a serious hindrance to progress as of late.

 

If this is instead of the rest of the system, then there are many skilled competitors in less skilled (overall) teams or who are not in teams.  They would lose their voice, and I don't think giving teams greater control over this is the solution anyway.

 

2. That all active and skilled competitive players can influence a vote without one group of people becoming dominant in the discussion. People who are inactive in-game won't be able to exert undue influence, because even if they join a team they are just one of many who get a say in the decisions. 

 

People inactive in-game won't be able to do that anyway, because without being active in game they will be unable to achieve whatever ranking cutoff is necessary to have a vote that counts.

 

3. This plan is egalitarian and decentralized by nature, but it fits with Dannnno's suggestion to have the tiering decisions be made by the community even if they sometimes make the wrong decision: it's not unreasonable to suspect that some teams might make a bad decision. But it seems unlikely that every team will choose a spokesperson who makes bad/uninformed decisions on a regular basis or disregards input from teammates. Even if this did happen, the teams would still have control over who speaks for them, and could oust a spokesman who ends up acting like a dumbshit.

 

I also don't really like this because all of the many skilled players in a single team would then be excluded from the actual voting process - while they can debate with their team, they would lose the opportunity to cast the vote themselves

 

My idea isn't perfect but it might work. To me it seems better than relying on the "top players" because they may all be using some strategy (e.g. Curselax) that allows them to win frequently, giving them a bias in favor of it. In fact, if there are any strategies of the PokeMMO meta that are really "Uber", you should expect the best players in the game to be using them frequently to win.

 

And people in a team would for some reason not use that strategy and not be biased for it?  I think we have to accept bias as a given, but hope that most people realize that the meta is less fun with the broken thing than without.

 

Please give more feedback! I want to know what other people think about this.

 

I also would really appreciate staff feedback - is this something that would even be considered or do you think our current method works fine?

Link to comment
  • 0

Being a CA mod doesn't mean they have any specific level of understanding of the PokeMMO meta game (they may not even attend/ref or host tournaments). I am 99% sure that Desu won't give some forum mods the ability to change such a thing in game directly. Maybe they would be allowed to request but not do it themselves. Staff will most likely steer as clear away from the creation and decision making in regards to tiers as possible, using the lists are their limit. 

 

I am personally someone who believes in quality of arguments over quantity. This means there could be 1000 people arguing one poorly thought of point to me but I could be swayed by one person with a fantastic argument that makes sense. I don't believe in awarding people the ability to vote or taking it away, if someone makes a horrible argument it should be shit all over and even the "smartest" people on a subject matter can make a poor argument on occasions. A completely open discussion (anyone can speak) does a few good things 1) allows for everyone to give input 2) if someone gives a poorly thought of argument it can be used to strengthen a better argument and it can be used to teach the said individual also (as a past Head of CA I have watched people who started posting in the tier threads learn and grow into people who legitimately know what is going on) 3) allows for a "wild card" individual to make a strong argument and doesn't exclude those who have valid input. 

 

At the end of the day, Dannnnno, you want a tiering "council" who is almost always making the community happy but not one that may necessarily always be making the correct choiceThis is where we ultimately disagree. I think the current system is fine because it meets what I deem as "almost always correct decision making" whereas voting would not amount to this. 

 

Overall I will say this: I can't see the staff supporting this. It's too complex and it involves staff being out of their comfort zones and being too malleable by a group of people in game. They would also be directly responsible for complaints when something is done that someone does not disagree with. They would sooner have the responsibility on the community completely, and then they will use the information as they wish.  This is completely understandable imo. 

Edited by Emlee
Link to comment
  • 0

Being a CA mod doesn't mean they have any specific level of understanding of the PokeMMO meta game (they may not even attend/ref or host tournaments). I am 99% sure that Desu won't give some forum mods the ability to change such a thing in game directly. Maybe they would be allowed to request but not do it themselves. Staff will most likely steer as clear away from the creation and decision making in regards to tiers as possible, using the lists are their limit. 

 

I should have been more clear - I'm not saying that the CA mods would make decisions or anything.  I'm just saying that the CA mods should be the ones responsible for adjusting in game banlists, and CA mods should (imo) be the ones who are most involved with competitive aspects of the game.  I only suggest this because I suspect they have more free time to do this than Desu/Shu/Squirtle/Others who already have power like this.

 

I am personally someone who believes in quality of arguments over quantity. This means there could be 1000 people arguing one poorly thought of point to me but I could be swayed by one person with a fantastic argument that makes sense. I don't believe in awarding people the ability to vote or taking it away, if someone makes a horrible argument it should be shit all over and even the "smartest" people on a subject matter can make a poor argument on occasions. A completely open discussion (anyone can speak) does a few good things 1) allows for everyone to give input 2) if someone gives a poorly thought of argument it can be used to strengthen a better argument and it can be used to teach the said individual also (as a past Head of CA I have watched people who started posting in the tier threads learn and grow into people who legitimately know what is going on) 3) allows for a "wild card" individual to make a strong argument and doesn't exclude those who have valid input. 

 

Nothing in this suggestion will make 'low quality' arguments more likely than they already are.  If someone makes a horrible argument they can and will still be shit all over.  Everyone still has the ability to give input - but only people who are deemed to have a certain level of proficiency, ie the ability to understand and properly respond to given arguments, will have the right to vote.  Everyone can still vote and give input.  Everyone can still learn and develop as theoretical and actual competitive players.  But only people who successfully develop as actual competitive players will make the decisions.

 

At the end of the day, Dannnnno, you want a tiering "council" who is almost always making the community happy but not one that may necessarily always be making the correct choiceThis is where we ultimately disagree. I think the current system is fine because it meets what I deem as "almost always correct decision making" whereas voting would not amount to this. 

 

You're right, this is where we disagree.  I don't care if it is the 'correct' choice, especially considering how subjective it is to call it the 'correct' choice.  I do care, however, that we aren't just saying 'the community makes tiering decisions' even though the truth is 'everyone argues and then a couple of people make a decision that is sometimes unclear to the rest of us'.  If it is the wrong decision something can be resuspected, re/un banned, whatever.  But I do believe that in order to make our own, viable competitive community we have to move away from the current self-selecting system and have a system where the competitive community makes its own decisions, for better or for worse.

 

Overall I will say this: I can't see the staff supporting this. It's too complex and it involves staff being out of their comfort zones and being too malleable by a group of people in game. They would also be directly responsible for complaints when something is done that someone does not disagree with. They would sooner have the responsibility on the community completely, and then they will use the information as they wish.  This is completely understandable imo. 

 

I don't think you're understanding the suggestion.  One, I disagree that it is very complex (but thats largely irrelevant).  Two, the staff don't have to do anything except lock threads (already do) and adjust in game ban lists based on the official competitive community decision.  The staff will be no more directly responsible for this than they are for current tiering decisions - that doesn't mean people won't argue or blame them, but that happens already regardless.  This would be the "responsibility on the community completely" that you believe they would want.

 

you also spelled my name wrong

 

srs wtf emlee

Link to comment
  • 0

Dannnnnnnnno I always spell your name wrong (Please don't edit this from my post again, please restore his post that had content ;s )

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one for sure, and I will still lub you the same but. . . 

If you exclude everyone who has intelligent input then stupid decisions will be made. The smart arguments are going to be washed away in a sea of conformity and neglect of the bigger picture. If anything what should be encouraged are third parties who are neutral to the comp scene (uninvolved/unbiased and intelligent) and we already have this. 

 

Mods are mods though, again being a mod isn't special and it doesn't mean they deserve any special abilities. As a moderator you're suppose to make sure no rules are being broken/moderate when applicable. You're not there to join the conversation and this almost feels like that is being suggested on a small degree. 

Edited by Emlee
Link to comment
  • 0

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one for sure, and I will still lub you the same but. . . 

If you exclude everyone who has intelligent input then stupid decisions will be made. The smart arguments are going to be washed away in a sea of conformity and neglect of the bigger picture. If anything what should be encouraged are third parties who are neutral to the comp scene (uninvolved/unbiased and intelligent) and we already have this. 

 

Mods are mods though, again being a mod isn't special and it doesn't mean they deserve any special abilities. As a moderator you're suppose to make sure no rules are being broken/moderate when applicable. You're not there to join the conversation and this almost feels like that is being suggested on a small degree. 

 

People who have intelligent input aren't being excluded.  People who are unable to translate their intelligent input to in game competitive success shouldn't have the right to vote, although they are still certainly welcome to voice their opinions.

 

I appreciate the mod point.  I was just approaching it from a perspective where community members will likely never be allowed to do anything to adjust banlists in game, and I figured that comp alley mods might as well be the ones who take care of it.  I will go back and edit the suggestion sometime later so I'm clear that mods aren't doing anything except moderate and then act on the official decision

Edited by XelaKebert
Quote not needed anymore.
Link to comment
  • 0

People who have intelligent input aren't being excluded.  People who are unable to translate their intelligent input to in game competitive success shouldn't have the right to vote, although they are still certainly welcome to voice their opinions.

 

I appreciate the mod point.  I was just approaching it from a perspective where community members will likely never be allowed to do anything to adjust banlists in game, and I figured that comp alley mods might as well be the ones who take care of it.  I will go back and edit the suggestion sometime later so I'm clear that mods aren't doing anything except moderate and then act on the official decision

 

I think Senile is a good example of someone who is intelligent who would be excluded. I don't think that it means he has to translate it into success in game, it's valuable that he is a third and unbiased party but overall I can see what you are saying and I accept your opinion, just not as my own. 

Edited by XelaKebert
Removed text relating to hidden posts.
Link to comment
  • 0

I think Senile is a good example of someone who is intelligent who would be excluded. I don't think that it means he has to translate it into success in game, it's valuable that he is a third and unbiased party but overall I can see what you are saying and I accept your opinion, just not as my own. 

 

 

Are you meaning exclusion from voting or exclusion from voicing their opinion?

 

So, the exact same thing they're doing now?

If so, then why is this in Suggestion Box?

 

Because it requires in game support.  To borrow a phrase from you, "Can you even fucking read?"

Edited by XelaKebert
Link to comment
  • 0

Because it requires in game support.  To borrow a phrase from you, "Can you even fucking read?"

If it requires in game support, then more is being done than just "Acting on the final decision". The amount of work you're asking to be done in game definitely counts as moving staff "outside of their comfort zone". In other words, I was pointing out you were contradicting yourself.

[spoiler]inb4 "mods themselves aren't making the in game changes so it's completely different duh"[spoiler]Also, I've never actually said that in those words before.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Link to comment
  • 0



Either or both.


well, yes he would be excluded from voting - I think it is neither unreasonable or unfair for someone who doesn't play a game to not be allowed to make a decision that will have lasting and (potentially) permanent effects on the game's meta.

However no one is excluded from voicing an opinion - he would be perfectly welcome to make his rants/arguments



If it requires in game support, then more is being done than just "Acting on the final decision". The amount of work you're asking to be done in game definitely counts as moving staff "outside of their comfort zone". In other words, I was pointing out you were contradicting yourself.

[spoiler]inb4 "mods themselves aren't making the in game changes so it's completely different duh"[spoiler]Also, I've never actually said that in those words before.[/spoiler][/spoiler]


the in game support is minimal - it just requires additional code for the creation of 'suspect testing' mode, and then the actual changes to the banlists.

The additional code I was considering 'work for desu' not 'mods doing shit' and changes to the banlist are essentially what they do now when they run a tournament based on an updated tierlist.

I didn't say it isn't outside their comfort zone - I'm just saying it shouldn't be because it really doesn't take that much more from them

All the mods would have to do once this is implemented would be:
1. in the GM menu click 'suspect testing', 'tier XXX', 'Pokemon XXX' (or something more complex if complex bans become supported)
2. Wait a month
3. Unclick 'suspect testing'
4. Wait a week
5. Edit the banlists if necessary

While it is something new, it is not (imo) complex enough to be 'zomg new things avoid at all costs'

[spoiler]and it sounds like something you'd say[/spoiler] Edited by Mariout
Merged
Link to comment
  • 0

the in game support is minimal - it just requires additional code for the creation of 'suspect testing' mode, and then the actual changes to the banlists.


The additional code I was considering 'work for desu' not 'mods doing shit' and changes to the banlist are essentially what they do now when they run a tournament based on an updated tierlist.

I didn't say it isn't outside their comfort zone - I'm just saying it shouldn't be because it really doesn't take that much more from them

All the mods would have to do once this is implemented would be:
1. in the GM menu click 'suspect testing', 'tier XXX', 'Pokemon XXX' (or something more complex if complex bans become supported)
2. Wait a month
3. Unclick 'suspect testing'
4. Wait a week
5. Edit the banlists if necessary

While it is something new, it is not (imo) complex enough to be 'zomg new things avoid at all costs'

[spoiler]and it sounds like something you'd say[/spoiler]

 

Ignoring the fact ranking is terrible, you're assuming it'd be that easy. They can't even change the current banlist without updating (yet), I very much doubt the in game support required is "Minimal", especially for something like what you're requesting. Also, I'd like to point out, Complex bans have to become supported, as you said "if complex bans become supported".

Besides that, you are insane if you think only having 1 thing suspected every 5 weeks is anywhere near reasonable. Not even Smogon has something that ridiculous put in place, and Smogon is dealing with a mostly finalized version of the metagame. We're dealing with a game missing tons of high class threats, and updates every few months. If we're having 1 suspect every 5 weeks, we'll get maybe a handful of suspects done, then anything that might have been banned will immediately be called into question once an update comes out. We're missing the majority of OU, having 1 suspect every 5 weeks will be a joke at best, and fail to establish anything.

While we're at it, I'll address the rest of the OP. First of all, a ranking tournament; You seriously expect this to happen when they can't even host regular tournaments? pls. (Ignoring that a tournament is a god damn awful way to make a council, I mean)

In #1, regarding what to suspect test, none of the aspects you listed are actual reasons for suspecting something. I'm not even sure where you got those things from, I assume you made them up on the spot while writing this.

And, once again, I can't emphasize this enough; This is not as easy as you're making it out to be. Ignoring all the flaws in the current implementation of the idea, and ignoring the fact the staff are almost certainly not comfortable with this, I doubt implementing something like this is as easy as you seem to imply it is. The idea doesn't work, and is a lot of work to implement in the first place, for a system I doubt the staff cares about or is concerned about to begin with.

But, honestly, I don't think there's any way this would be put in regardless. It seems "out of character" for staff, on top of the work and upkeep that must be put in, to change to a system which isn't necessarily better, just a system that appeals to the masses, not a system that promotes proper decisions. (And hue, staff choosing to appeal to the masses if they don't think the masses have a proper argument)

Link to comment
  • 0

I like this suggestion better than the current system definitely. Anything that can shift the tiering power more towards a community based on and less towards a "dictatorship" (lack of better words) without shifting it so much that ppl who dont know what they are talking about could have too much power. I think that there should be a better system to determine who has a vote or not. But I cant think of one atm. I especially agree that the council needs to be elected, and i think that anyone should be able to vote on the council. And maybe we could have a system of checks n balances. My understanding of your suggestion is to let the community vote on bans and such, letting only successful comp battlers have a vote and allow the council only break ties and lead discussions. But what if we had it to where the council has to vote on a ban based on the communities discussion on the topic, then the players can veto the vote with a majority vote. If both the comp players with a vote and the council votes for it then its banned. If the counsel votes for it and the comp players vote against it then its not banned.

 

So heres how the set up would work

The community will have the power to debate and vote for the council who will lead this thing. That is the extent of the average joes power

 

The comp players who has a vote will be able to veto a council decision. The way the comp players are decided needs to be debated. Also another possible issue is rampant bias withing the comp community, ie all of the top players using an op pokes. 

 

Im just spitting out ideas here, i dont think any of this is by no means perfect. I do think we need anything but the way it is now. (not literally anything)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.