Re: Transparency and tier council discussions.

[Tiltlord]

Just wondering. Based on the last topic, people in charge seem to wait for a post that supports their view then close the topic. Is this a prevailing trend? I am sorry I am new here but it does seem a little contrived. Also how many truly fresh people use forums, can I get a running list of comments by everyone who sees this who is new? I want to know. Just because it seems that people think there are a vast amount of people out there in the community that actually care about forums but also know nothing about the game.

I will start. I am new I only have 500 hours in game. 

[fredrichnietze]

xatu's a bit thick. and staff can pretty much do whatever, but everything they do is logged and upper staff have been known to fire a lot of people for small things so they tend to tread with caution. 

9 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

Also how many truly fresh people use forums

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/online/

about half? are guest with no account so a lot.

 

as for transparency what do you want to know? i used to be in the council and quit for a number of reasons but mostly i had no time. if i can answer your question i will.

[Tiltlord]

Yes but with voting you would need an account correct?

And anything, what are tier decisions mostly based on.

[Greck]

You need acc, thats why i think heavy game related shit should be handled in game. OR at least go advertise forums more actively

[Tiltlord]

Yes but in the previous argument. People were stating that if you opened issues up for voting then people who were new and had no idea would vote. How is this possible if new people don't have accounts.

[Hotarubi]

1 minute ago, Tiltlord said:

Yes but with voting you would need an account correct?

Nothing can really stop people from making multiple forums accounts just to provide an extra pull in they own favorable outcome.

I know it sounds a bit out there but this is a common issue.

At the same time I agree with you that a bias decision base is made on grounds of a few selected people making decisions.

On that not I think it should be the community decision.

Specifically the competitive community not just anyone.

However at this same time there seems to be no way to moderate this.

 

[fredrichnietze]

2 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

Yes but with voting you would need an account correct?

And anything, what are tier decisions mostly based on.

tiering policy and a bit of personal opinion. 

a thing (pokemon, item, ect) will be proposed to be talked about as possibly following a the definitions of one of the uber categories with reasoning given. all of the member's of the council will talk about this and argue back and forth for weeks and then they will vote.

 

1 minute ago, Tiltlord said:

 

Yes but in the previous argument. People were stating that if you opened issues up for voting then people who were new and had no idea would vote. How is this possible if new people don't have accounts.

 

xatu's a bit thick and didnt think it through and doesnt understand enough to make a good suggestion.

[Tiltlord]

Ok so you just said they discuss it for weeks before coming to an outcome right. Then that means the two new people to the council were admitted weeks ago? or that they didn't participate in the vote? Is that correct?

[Xatu]

4 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

xatu's a bit thick.

Stop calling me stupid for no reason.  My idea has lots of logic behind it.  I was merely calling for more people to be added to TC so its way less biased by you probably didnt even read through my posts.

1 minute ago, fredrichnietze said:

tiering policy and a bit of personal opinion. 

a thing (pokemon, item, ect) will be proposed to be talked about as possibly following a the definitions of one of the uber categories with reasoning given. all of the member's of the council will talk about this and argue back and forth for weeks and then they will vote.

Why cant more people than just like 5 be "invited" to discuss this.  Clearly nobodies extremely in depth discussion in the snorlax thread was heard because it was overshadowed by the bias which results from so few people voting.

1 minute ago, fredrichnietze said:

 

xatu's a bit thick and didnt think it through and doesnt understand enough to make a good suggestion.

Here you go insulting me again for no reason.  Im not "thick".  My suggestion was fine and i even suggested 3 seperate scenarios instead of just 1.

[Hotarubi]

3 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

Ok so you just said they discuss it for weeks before coming to an outcome right. Then that means the two new people to the council were admitted weeks ago? or that they didn't participate in the vote? Is that correct?

In my opinion only one person can answer that. Which would be Tyrone.

[Xatu]

2 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

Then that means the two new people to the council were admitted weeks ago? or that they didn't participate in the vote? Is that correct?

We have been talking about snorlax for months in the competitive section of the forums.  Literally everything that can and could be said about snorlax is said in that thread.  They have been talking in circles over and over. 

 

Those 2 people added most certainly did participate in the vote.  And they were both publicly supporting snorlax beforehand.  That's why i was using the term "corruption".  Because thats what it is. 

[Tiltlord]

I don't want to go so far as corruption. Just transparency. Let's keep this moderate. So theoretically people can be added to tier council just before a certain vote? Also so then the logic on typhlosion was that it fell between the percentage list. Then it was deemed that typhlosion would not upset the UU metagame, correct?

[Hotarubi]

4 minutes ago, Xatu said:

We have been talking about snorlax for months in the competitive section of the forums.  Literally everything that can and could be said about snorlax is said in that thread.  They have been talking in circles over and over. 

 

Those 2 people added most certainly did participate in the vote.  And they were both publicly supporting snorlax beforehand.  That's why i was using the term "corruption".  Because thats what it is. 

The word Bias is a bit more fitting.

[Greck]

Let be clear, no metter what or how we ban things, never everyone is gonna be happy, and always there will be people complayin about bans, or about no bans.

[Xatu]

2 minutes ago, Greck said:

Let be clear, no metter what or how we ban things, never everyone is gonna be happy, and always there will be people complayin about bans, or about no bans.

Ban Chansey and Snorlax.  Everyone is happy.  GG

[Greck]

1 minute ago, Xatu said:

Ban Chansey and Snorlax.  Everyone is happy.  GG

Then pokemons that Chansey and Snorlax counter will become overpower, and lets ban em too, etc etc

[Xatu]

2 minutes ago, Greck said:

Then pokemons that Chansey and Snorlax counter will become overpower, and lets ban em too, etc etc

Thats a bad argument.  The pokemont that those 2 counter arent at 45% usage.  We would still be left with lots of sp walls to choose from too.  umbreon, dusclops, venusaur, porygon2, milotic

Edited October 3, 2016 by Xatu

[fredrichnietze]

3 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

Ok so you just said they discuss it for weeks before coming to an outcome right. Then that means the two new people to the council were admitted weeks ago? or that they didn't participate in the vote? Is that correct?

the two new people discussed it in the 30+ page public thread. idk if they participated. 

1 minute ago, Xatu said:

Stop calling me stupid for no reason.  My idea has lots of logic behind it.  I was merely calling for more people to be added to TC so its way less biased by you probably didnt even read through my posts.

Why cant more people than just like 5 be "invited" to discuss this.  Clearly nobodies extremely in depth discussion in the snorlax thread was heard because it was overshadowed by the bias which results from so few people voting.

Here you go insulting me again for no reason.  Im not "thick".  My suggestion was fine and i even suggested 3 seperate scenarios instead of just 1.

ok you first point is "they hired 2 people who were "biased" for banning lax" implies you think the lax ban is more important then all the other bans the new guys will be involved in and is soooooo important that they would be hired because they support the lax ban. this is ridiculous. you think this because the ban is important to you. 

 

second public elections have to be approved by squirtle. this will not happen. this has been talked about in length before and squirtle flat out said no. their are other factors involved but re suggesting something that has been shot down by the guy running the show here is dumb. he has never changed his mind that i know of in the 3? 4? years i have been around.

 

third, in game polls require staff actually coding this new mechanic which takes away from making new content. this also can be abused by alt accounts and the vast majority of those involved have no idea about any of this. do you know how many people vote for politicians because "i think hes hot" or "im the same race" or "i think we need a women in office"? 

 

fourth understanding how to abuse a broken system does not mean you inclined to fix it or are capable of identifying the root problem or figuring out when the solution is more harmful then the problem. and that's not even touching on the fact that staff dont want just anyone in the council and they ave the biggest say in the matter. you can argue this point but what you have to say does not matter because you cant argue with upper staff.

 

after reading your post twice now i think how you think is "i disagree with a decision made------>i can not possibly be wrong--------->therefore the system is broken."

 

 

 

[Greck]

Wow, are we again in the times where only 10 pokemons are used in OU?

 

The meta at this point is not possible to balance, there are very few tier breakers to make racional bans.

[Tiltlord]

That would just be banning out two special walls, judging by your pic and name you like special attackers. I would say that is a bit far. 

4 minutes ago, Xatu said:

Ban Chansey and Snorlax.  Everyone is happy.  GG

 

2 minutes ago, Xatu said:

Thats a bad argument.  The pokemont hat counter those 2 arent at 45% usage.

Nonetheless. It seems that everyone will have their opinion I agree. So why not base it on prevailing opinions, a sample of 4-6 from tier council seems a little small?

[KaynineXL]

I'm requesting a ban on Xatu. The player, not the Pokemon.

[Nientales]

I will simply say.

 

To many chiefs not enough indians.

 

The format works as is, stop crying.

[Xatu]

2 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

the two new people discussed it in the 30+ page public thread. idk if they participated. 

ok you first point is "they hired 2 people who were "biased" for banning lax" implies you think the lax ban is more important then all the other bans the new guys will be involved in and is soooooo important that they would be hired because they support the lax ban. this is ridiculous. you think this because the ban is important to you. 

 

second public elections have to be approved by squirtle. this will not happen. this has been talked about in length before and squirtle flat out said no. their are other factors involved but re suggesting something that has been shot down by the guy running the show here is dumb. he has never changed his mind that i know of in the 3? 4? years i have been around.

 

third, in game polls require staff actually coding this new mechanic which takes away from making new content. this also can be abused by alt accounts and the vast majority of those involved have no idea about any of this. do you know how many people vote for politicians because "i think hes hot" or "im the same race" or "i think we need a women in office"? 

 

fourth understanding how to abuse a broken system does not mean you inclined to fix it or are capable of identifying the root problem or figuring out when the solution is more harmful then the problem. and that's not even touching on the fact that staff dont want just anyone in the council and they ave the biggest say in the matter. you can argue this point but what you have to say does not matter because you cant argue with upper staff.

 

after reading your post twice now i think how you think is "i disagree with a decision made------>i can not possibly be wrong--------->therefore the system is broken."

 

 

 

This whole wall of text saying basically nothing at all and you still think the TC should only have 5 people?  GG m8.

[fredrichnietze]

9 minutes ago, Tiltlord said:

I don't want to go so far as corruption. Just transparency. Let's keep this moderate. So theoretically people can be added to tier council just before a certain vote? Also so then the logic on typhlosion was that it fell between the percentage list. Then it was deemed that typhlosion would not upset the UU metagame, correct?

it is being tested. some of the calcs at 100% hp look scary with specs + eruption, however their is a fair number of faster pokemon + specs and if typhlosion takes damage then the power of specs locked eruption goes down quiet a bit. their are some counters where he needs a specific hp too. they are testing because he might not be ban worthy, not because they are sure he isnt. it's a test and he'll be moved soon if it is apparent quickly that he is broken. 

 

also the openings have been there for a while, it's probably coincidence. 

[Tiltlord]

Also IF what hotarubi says is true, that the people admitted to the tier council publicly supported a side before admission. Not privately amongst the council. THEN were added before a specific vote. In which the view they had expressed would be voted on. Would that be considered reasonable?