Blammo, problem solved. Now we dont have to make a pedantic and ignorantly arbitrary change to the voting process that we agreed on and have been using for 6 months!
It isnt arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if the number 66% wasnt agreed by most people including yourself to be a better number than 50%.
Also our method has evolved throughout this process, there is no reason to continue to use 50% if we feel that 66% is a better number.
I also think you are jumping the gun in assuming this change has to be made immediately. If we do decide that sticking with the status quo is important, this is a change that can be made in future, or at any time we feel is appropriate. It doesnt mean we shouldnt consider the possibility now.
Also the revisiting of suspects in stage 3 may not solve the problem. Like, if Latios is found to be uber in stage three with 51% of the vote, will it be removed from uber? Considering the first time we tested it was found to be ou with something like 80%.
Which I guess brings up another question, how will the stage 3 test be handled?
I mean like, it is easy to say that stage 3 will solve these problems but if we dont know exactly how the voting or testing will be handled I am not sure we can assume that it will. Is there any reson stage 3 shouldnt use a supermajority.
Have a nice day.