-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
np: UU - Can't Touch This
- Thread starter reachzero
- Start date
- Status
OMFG! Thank you! I actually think the paragraphs deter UUers from voting. They are honestly pointless imo, when everyone(ok, maybe not everyone, but still...) knows what is/isn't broken, I don't know it for sure, but Jabba and Reach probably have their opinions on the suspects and could do without reading essay after essay. A discussion sounds like a very good idea. It's much better than having to write out entire paragraphs about people ranting about how powerful some fat bitch is. I'm just sayin"....call me lazy (I am), but I second(third) Vrolok's idea.
Because we want only the most qualified, intelligent voters to be able to cast a vote. If you saw some of the paragraphs we receive you'd agree with the system...
Paragraphs are a fundamental part of the system. They ensure that voters aren't voting based solely on personal interests i.e. my team is extremely good with Cresselia therefore I don't want Cresselia banned. They prevent people who are oblivious from voting too. There are several paragraphs that just have countless false claims and show a clear lack of understanding of the game. I'm sorry if you can't find time in your day to string 10 sentences together explaining why a pokemon is too good for a tier, but it's in the best interests of the system.
Lol, I actually thought about this when I was typing out my post, but there just has to be another way. I just absolutely can't stand writing out my opinions about things I can give two words for..."fuck off". So, go ahead and flame me now, but I still can't stand writing for something that can most likely be done much easier.
Also I want to make it known that there have been several talks in recent days about shortening the UU testing period to 4 weeks. So far that has been zero opposition to the proposal so I would like to hear what the players themselves have to say about it. Yay or nay?
Absolutely yay! 4 weeks is plenty of time to get a good feel for the suspects. Like cressy, within the first 2 weeks, everyone knew she was too powerful or sturdy...whichever you prefer. I'm all for it. Actually, the way it is now, I find it easy to get bored of the UU tier. I like change, and playing crappy metagames for extended periods is just...meh.
Posting to comment that I'm for it since I've been the one campaigning for it anyway. 6 weeks is far too long IMO, I think we can all agree we basically knew what we were doing weeks ago. It'd be nice to move things a long faster, especially because I think it'd help those times when voters may or may not have made a mistake...
As far as the paras thing... I personally like the paras just because I think ratings are often misleading. I would probably be a lot stricter with them than Jabba and reach are, but I feel more comfortable knowing that even if I disagree with people, they proved that they knew what they were talking about and had a logical argument. I don't know about you guys, but I don't particularly _want_ it to be easy with a vote - I'd rather have fewer votes from people who care more, who are more knowledge.
As a different means to the same end I think it'd be an interesting option to crank up the rating requirement at least a hundred points and weaken the paragraph requirements, though. I think even with the current system they're way too low right now.
As far as the paras thing... I personally like the paras just because I think ratings are often misleading. I would probably be a lot stricter with them than Jabba and reach are, but I feel more comfortable knowing that even if I disagree with people, they proved that they knew what they were talking about and had a logical argument. I don't know about you guys, but I don't particularly _want_ it to be easy with a vote - I'd rather have fewer votes from people who care more, who are more knowledge.
As a different means to the same end I think it'd be an interesting option to crank up the rating requirement at least a hundred points and weaken the paragraph requirements, though. I think even with the current system they're way too low right now.
Another option we were discussing was adding an "upper requirement" where you're not completely free of paragraphs, but for each suspect you only have to write around ~3 sentences and it just has to be a cursory explanation of your vote, nothing in depth.
Making a 1700 rating requirement would be too high. 1600 is reachable by an alt with a good team in a short while (coughmecough), but it's hard enough that most people who can get it pretty much know what they're doing. 1700 would restrict it to people who know what they're doing, yes, but also block out a lot of people who play the tier. We want to directly elect senators, not stand around and watch the House do it. Or something. In fact, I'd actually be more interested in a slightly lower requirement with more stringent paragraph reqs, but then again, I don't have to read the things. Some sort of sliding scale would be cool, though.
Also agreeing with the four-week period. That's enough time for the metagame to settle down a bit before nomination lists, and then the nomination and voting takes long enough that by the time slackers like me get their paragraphs in (ie, the last possible day), the ins and outs of the suspects can be clearly discussed.
Also agreeing with the four-week period. That's enough time for the metagame to settle down a bit before nomination lists, and then the nomination and voting takes long enough that by the time slackers like me get their paragraphs in (ie, the last possible day), the ins and outs of the suspects can be clearly discussed.
I don't think there's a whole lot of advantage from a policy perspective of being more inclusive, as much as being tougher on paragraphs (which wastes the time of the people administering the system) would probably negate it. It's like, ideally we want the handful of players who are the most knowledgeable about the game to be making decisions to keep the game as balanced as it can be. I worry when slipping down that we're more likely to find players voting for what they can't or don't want to handle rather than what is or isn't broken... I feel like I can rely on the top 5% or whatever to adapt, whereas once we trickle down a little farther it starts hitting players who are still learning the metagame. I, for one, don't want people who are still figuring this game out voting on what is best for it - I want the people who know the game in and out, so they can see how their decisions are going to effect the game. It's really tough (impossible on a BL vote) to "take back" a mistake from the voters, so I'd rather reduce the margin for making rash decisions.
I don't think a higher requirement is such a bad thing for newer players anyway, it gives them something to work for...
I don't think a higher requirement is such a bad thing for newer players anyway, it gives them something to work for...
1700 is in no way too high to tell you the truth, at least for the "shortened paragraph" requirement.
I agree here.
Support a four week testing period. Support a "shortened paragraph" rating benchmark. These are great ideas.
Yeah but here's this thing called hax that stops alot of people from getting onto the leaderboard (coughcoughme)
Aka you can't be bothered to write paragraphs / can't think of good arguments?
There is really no other reason that you won't write a paragraph. Whine all you want, it will really get us (or you) no where.
@ FlareBlitz: I also find it comical that you find these Pokemon staying to be the processes fault. Maybe you should have umm..I don't know...uhh...nominated Froslass if you have a problem with it staying? Just a thought. And did you have two tests last week? What about the week before? You have had plenty of opportunity to write paragraphs, especially for something like Cresselia who was clearly going to be a suspect.
@ 4 weeks: Yes that's more than enough time.
@ Upper requirement: Sure?
I'd just like to post saying I strongly support this.
I agree with shortening the testing period to 4 weeks. This will be especially prescient if Hippodowon or something makes its way down; probably would be best if it went away as soon as possible.
Also, regarding the paragraphs issue. I don't have a problem with the thoroughness of the paragraphs you guys expect; it's good to require thorough explanations. My problem is the large amount of redundancy introduced into the system. As it is, I've posted large, essay-length paragraphs about the suspects in both this thread, the Pokemons' individual discussion threads, and the nomination thread last time (if applicable). I'm sure others have done the same. At a certain point you just get tired of writing about a Pokemon.
I have a couple of ideas on how to streamline the system...
1) Have people send you guys nomination paragraphs directly and in private. The thorough nomination paragraphs automatically qualify the individual for voter status, but only on that suspect. During the nomination process, post all the currently-accepted suspects in a thread. People will then be able to write paragraph suggesting that a suspect isn't broken. Grant these people voting rights on that suspect as well.
What this method does is, it automatically combines both the nomination process and the voter paragraph process. Any individual knowledgeable enough about the metagame to make a solid case for why x needs to be banned or why it doesn't should get to vote on it imo.
2) One week before the testing period ends, ask people to make an "Individual Discussion Thread" regarding the Pokemon they believe are suspects. Close the threads which don't have enough substance to go on (if someone nominates Venusaur with the justification that "sleep powder is broken" or something). Let discussion occur, and if the discussion seems to suggest that the Pokemon in question isn't much of a suspect, then that Pokemon is not nominated. If the discussion is contentious, then the Pokemon probably is a suspect. At this point, go through the thread, pick out the people who made the most valid arguments for/against the suspect, and give them voting rights.
The advantage of this system is that it hides the nomination process and the voter paragraph process behind the general discussion and debate about a suspect Pokemon that goes on anyway, so it's much more seamless, less time consuming, and more "natural". The disadvantage is that it's much more subjective, and would probably involve more work on the part of the mods in charge of it.
Either system would be better than the current system, imo, which is just much too unwieldy. I understand what you guys are trying to go for with it, but some of the fat could definitely be trimmed.
Also, regarding the paragraphs issue. I don't have a problem with the thoroughness of the paragraphs you guys expect; it's good to require thorough explanations. My problem is the large amount of redundancy introduced into the system. As it is, I've posted large, essay-length paragraphs about the suspects in both this thread, the Pokemons' individual discussion threads, and the nomination thread last time (if applicable). I'm sure others have done the same. At a certain point you just get tired of writing about a Pokemon.
I have a couple of ideas on how to streamline the system...
1) Have people send you guys nomination paragraphs directly and in private. The thorough nomination paragraphs automatically qualify the individual for voter status, but only on that suspect. During the nomination process, post all the currently-accepted suspects in a thread. People will then be able to write paragraph suggesting that a suspect isn't broken. Grant these people voting rights on that suspect as well.
What this method does is, it automatically combines both the nomination process and the voter paragraph process. Any individual knowledgeable enough about the metagame to make a solid case for why x needs to be banned or why it doesn't should get to vote on it imo.
2) One week before the testing period ends, ask people to make an "Individual Discussion Thread" regarding the Pokemon they believe are suspects. Close the threads which don't have enough substance to go on (if someone nominates Venusaur with the justification that "sleep powder is broken" or something). Let discussion occur, and if the discussion seems to suggest that the Pokemon in question isn't much of a suspect, then that Pokemon is not nominated. If the discussion is contentious, then the Pokemon probably is a suspect. At this point, go through the thread, pick out the people who made the most valid arguments for/against the suspect, and give them voting rights.
The advantage of this system is that it hides the nomination process and the voter paragraph process behind the general discussion and debate about a suspect Pokemon that goes on anyway, so it's much more seamless, less time consuming, and more "natural". The disadvantage is that it's much more subjective, and would probably involve more work on the part of the mods in charge of it.
Either system would be better than the current system, imo, which is just much too unwieldy. I understand what you guys are trying to go for with it, but some of the fat could definitely be trimmed.
They really really don't mind if you copy/paste your posts into your essay. I mean I hear about people saying that they do this all of the time. It's really an advantage to have written essay-length paragraphs in this thread actually, in addition to you already have done all of the work, there is a possibility that you may have found a counter-argument for your original argument that you can address in your paragraphs.
Really simple. Why don't you take 20 minutes and do it now? You will definitely at least be able to vote regarding Damp Rock, since you've written so much about it already. Just gather a bunch of your points and write them all down.
I just finished my Cresselia paragraph and I must say it was alot easier than I thought it would be. I don't know why people are complaining about time issue's I did it all in about 20 minutes
First of all, I absolutely support the 4 week testing period. Makes things a lot faster and still gives enough time to get the measure of the suspects/metagame.
On the upper requirement. I do not like that idea. We've seen what people like 5KR vote like, who can reach sky-high ratings(5KR is an amazing battler despite his arguments). I don't see why I should have to write way more than, say, Eo Ut Mortus or ToF, just because they win more than me, when we both qualify for voting.
Unless, of course, that rating is 2000 / 30 :)
Is writing voter paragraphs really that hard for you guys? I've never really found them to be problematic. They don't have to be doctorate theses, you know. As long as you cover the important points, you'll be fine no matter how long the paras are.
And you guys are allowed to c/p your posts in the forums, you know. Makes writing them a lot easier.
On the upper requirement. I do not like that idea. We've seen what people like 5KR vote like, who can reach sky-high ratings(5KR is an amazing battler despite his arguments). I don't see why I should have to write way more than, say, Eo Ut Mortus or ToF, just because they win more than me, when we both qualify for voting.
Unless, of course, that rating is 2000 / 30 :)
Is writing voter paragraphs really that hard for you guys? I've never really found them to be problematic. They don't have to be doctorate theses, you know. As long as you cover the important points, you'll be fine no matter how long the paras are.
And you guys are allowed to c/p your posts in the forums, you know. Makes writing them a lot easier.
I can't see why we can't just have a system like the OU Suspect process (I know not as many people play UU, so a UU Suspect Ladder would just be empty), but we really need to be able to see what the metagame is like with and without the Suspect. We have a 6 week period now, so I reckon we should have something like 3 weeks for with the Suspect, and 3 weeks where those Suspects are chucked to the "Limbo" Tier. SEXP should be used too, because you could have someone get up to 1700 or something without using a Suspect at all.
I am definetely for smaller testing periods and upper requirement.
While initially opposed to such idea's, I will really do whatever it takes to vote. (and in turn strive for a better metagame)
If it means doing even better than I can normally manage, I do not mind.
PS: Are the paragraphs due tomorrow?
While initially opposed to such idea's, I will really do whatever it takes to vote. (and in turn strive for a better metagame)
If it means doing even better than I can normally manage, I do not mind.
PS: Are the paragraphs due tomorrow?
I think this is a very good idea. As OU is becoming more centralised (not necessarily a problem) there is the risk of very powerful pokemon dropping in use and being dropped a tier such as Cresselia, PorygonZ and Heracross. It is important that UU has the option to remove them quickly.
But if you are going to increase the frequency of voting periods you probably also want to decrease the length of voting period. 4 weeks period and one week nom/voting seems odd.
For that reason i would support shortening essay/paragraph requirements with a higher rating requirement (i don't understand the rating system well enough to suggest a cut-off rating). It would take less time writing and take a few people out the system making it easier/quicker for reachzero and Jabba.
As a personal preference i think debate should be a part of the system. Though i understand its weaknesses; it can often go round in circles, it undermines my previous point about streamlining the process. This is why i am presenting as an optional extra. Its advantages are that it presents transparency, so that learners and future voters can see why things are getting banned and seeing what standard exactly it takes to get a qualifying vote. I really think that reading the forums and debate on the banning of pokemon is a great way to learn the game.
Just a few suggestions.
Pretty sure they were due yesterday.
I'd written most of my Frosslass paragraph, but I feel that without the February usage statistics being posted to my knowledge, that my argument about how the metagame has trended towards Anti-Lass leads that do nothing but prevent Spikes set up is a testament to how broken it is. I guess I'll abstain from voting then at this point in time, as the rest of my argument doesn't hold up quite as well without said statistics.
- Status