<SevenDeadlySins> honestly i'd like the uu process to be adopted for ou
<SevenDeadlySins> not even any modifications
<SevenDeadlySins> absolutely the uu process
<Kevin_Garrett> that would be fine
<SevenDeadlySins> it's been effective
<umbreon_dan> agreeing
<SevenDeadlySins> proven
<ete> and yea, we'll be ok in the long run doug
<SevenDeadlySins> and basically dealing with the exact same situation as new uu did
<umbreon_dan> i want to use my kyogre on pokelab again
--> |ibojangles (~ibojangle@i.dare.you) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v ibojangles by Porygon2
<Persistence> I read the UU megathread when I was bored
<Kevin_Garrett> this system is even better for ou because there is nothing dropping in usage
<SevenDeadlySins> yup
<Persistence> and I can say that 9/10 predictions were incorrect
<SevenDeadlySins> there's no worry about new stuff getting dropped in
<Kevin_Garrett> as for the here are our tiers thing you said before
<Kevin_Garrett> i can only agree with that for the intitial part of dp
<Kevin_Garrett> the community got to decide
<Kevin_Garrett> and by the end the community picked its suspects
<Kevin_Garrett> RE: Mence
|<--stellar has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: stellar)
<SevenDeadlySins> in fact
<Kevin_Garrett> so it took steps in evolving to something close to UU
<SevenDeadlySins> i'm going to start a new thread for saying "use the uu tiering process"
<RBG> Jabba and Reach in charge of gen 5 tiers
--> |evan (~TheBM@897A003F.1C842690.517FC2EC.IP) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v evan by Porygon2
<SevenDeadlySins> hahaha
<SevenDeadlySins> i'd be totally ok with that
<Persistence> in the politest and most naive way possible, I think the main problems within the smogon framework is that there are too many arguments over pedantry
<RBG> and jrrrrrr
=-=firecape is now known as firecafk
<Kevin_Garrett> lol rbg
<Persistence> I don't think we need to be clear cut on absolutely everything
<Persistence> if we attempt to be, nothing will ever get done [as has already been said]
<DougJustDoug> Jabba and Reach did a pretty good job of keeping things moving along in UU. I didn't follow it too closely, but I don't recall seeing a bunch of people complaining about their leadership.
<Persistence> I don't recall anyone making any sort of complaint
<Kevin_Garrett> The only complaints I had with UU leadership was before they were in charge
<Rising_Dusk> There are a lot of issues with that process that I'd want amended if we move to take it for BW OU.
<Heysup> reach and jabba were great
<Rising_Dusk> For instance, the whole submitting paragraph nonsense.
<Rising_Dusk> Anyone that meets the thresholds should be automatically allowed to vote.
<Heysup> The mods before that were....
<RBG> Me, Caleum and GS
<Persistence> I think that was resolved in a way rd
<Kevin_Garrett> the threshold should be higher then, shouldn't it be?
<Persistence> with upper requirements
<Heysup> yes i remember that
<RBG> i was at summer camp during the second segment and wasn't active
=-=jc104|away is now known as jc104
<RBG> caelum was never on IRC
<Rising_Dusk> The threshold should not be unattainable.
<Persistence> the way to get the fairest of votes is to ensure the largest voting pool
<RBG> and i don't remember GS being on much either then
<Rising_Dusk> But it should force you to thoroughly know the metagame to vote.
<Heysup> gs wasn't really around much iirc
<Persistence> so I think the current UU system is fine
<Rising_Dusk> So I imagine it as somewhere inbetween the lower and upper reqs right now.
|<--ibojangles has left irc.synirc.net (Connection reset by peer)
<Rising_Dusk> But not as low as lower or high as upper.
<DougJustDoug> RD, the expert players in the community were the ones that demanded we implement additional measures to ensure people were voting intelligently.
<Persistence> maybe submitting paragraphs is the wrong way to go about filtering out borderline voters, but it still needs to happen
<DougJustDoug> That's where paragraphs came about.
--> |ibojangles (~ibojangle@i.dare.you) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v ibojangles by Porygon2
<Kevin_Garrett> I remember I was rejected from voting for 3 different reasons from you guys. I think I should have gotten the benefit of the doubt because I was a tiering contributor.
<DougJustDoug> I have never seen a paragraph. Ever.
<Rising_Dusk> I was rejected from voting a few times as well in UU.
<Rising_Dusk> For very silly reasons that were never consistent between the two mods.
<Persistence> hm
<Kevin_Garrett> Most of the voting I did was without writing paragraphs
<Kevin_Garrett> I only had to write for Manaphy and Stage 3 i think
<Persistence> I still believe that the voting should consist of lower reqs + filter method *or* upper reqs
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> the question is what the filter method should be
<Kevin_Garrett> i always liked that
<Persistence> as apparently paragraphs don't work
<DougJustDoug> I honestly was shocked that Jumpman and Aeolus continued with paragraphs. Just because the sheer workload was such a pain.
<Kevin_Garrett> maybe they dont have to be paragraphs
<Persistence> the key being to show that the reader is capable of making a "good" decision on the subject
<Kevin_Garrett> why not just explain why you think it is what it is
<Kevin_Garrett> why does it have to be long
<Rising_Dusk> I hate the idea of SEXP, paragraphs, and other nonsensical overhead designed just to make the process harder and more painful.
<SevenDeadlySins> http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3029959#post3029959
<Persistence> I agree with kg here
<RBG> YEAH!
<Kevin_Garrett> I had to ask people how to make my paragraphs longer every time i wrote them
<SevenDeadlySins> i think the best argument for using the uu testing process for gen 5 ou
<Rising_Dusk> I dislike the idea of someone reading my paragraphs and judging me based on my english skills.
<Kevin_Garrett> just because saying why something is uber or ou only takes a few sentences
<RBG> 7 threads in Policy review now
<Persistence> also someone needs to post this log in sds' thread
<RBG> woooo
<DougJustDoug> Jumpman was meticulous as hell with paragraph evaluations. Most people have no idea how much time and effort he put into that stuff.
<SevenDeadlySins> is that the uu testing process absolutely had to deal with the exact same situation that gen 5 is in
<Persistence> I think moderator discretion is a key point in distinguishing stupid voters from intelligent ones
<SevenDeadlySins> and "is successful"
<dubs> i like the idea of paragraphs
<Persistence> the process does not need to be without human input
<dubs> but perhaps they should be judged based more on content?
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> yes
<Rising_Dusk> That's probably very true, Doug, but it is not worth the effort for either party.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: from what I can tell, the paragraphs were judged primarily on content and reasoning
<dubs> i honestly can't think of another way to filter
<Persistence> but overly so sds
<Rising_Dusk> One has to write these meticulous and carefully thought out paragraphs that present the case well, and then someone else has to review them.
<SevenDeadlySins> i don't think there's an "overly so" ther
<Kevin_Garrett> I think if you have a good (1) paragraph on explaining why you think something should be voted a certain way it should be acceptable
<SevenDeadlySins> there*
<Rising_Dusk> Why do we need a filter at all? Let the players who play the game vote.
<DougJustDoug> I agree completely. I would never expend that kind of effort just to evaluate voters.
<Heysup> some players are stupid
<Persistence> because there are stupid people
<Persistence> to put it bluntly
<SevenDeadlySins> but yeah, as long as a concise paragraph contains no major logical failures
<Kevin_Garrett> I think you just need a check so you don't get FiveKRunners
<Rising_Dusk> Some people lie on the stupid paragraphs too just to push their agenda.
<SevenDeadlySins> and yeah
<Heysup> that's true
<Rising_Dusk> The filtration process fixes absolutely nothing.
<Persistence> "moderator discretion"
<Heysup> but at least they're smart
<DougJustDoug> Particularly considering that the work he put in was never something people thanked him for.
<DougJustDoug> I wouldn't do it.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: if they "lie
<SevenDeadlySins> then they have to have legitimate reasoning anyway
<SevenDeadlySins> it doesn't matter if they have a "secret agenda"
<SevenDeadlySins> if they manage to present their logic in a reasonable manner the process has done its job
<Kevin_Garrett> rising duck, the only way they can lie is if they come up with a reason that matches their vote
<Kevin_Garrett> in which case it could be viable
<SevenDeadlySins> even if they didn't intend to vote for that reason
--> |atticus (~GuyLaroch@livinrooms.bedrooms.dinettes.OH.YEAH) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v atticus by Porygon2
<Rising_Dusk> Which, KG, is very easy.
<SevenDeadlySins> they had to come up with a logical one
<SevenDeadlySins> so?
<Kevin_Garrett> but if its a good reason
<Kevin_Garrett> why not count it
<SevenDeadlySins> if logic backs their reasoning
<Persistence> I think the key to this conundrum is selecting the best leaders for the job
<SevenDeadlySins> then who cares
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Kevin_Garrett> if they can make it sound good, let them vote
<Rising_Dusk> Yes, my point is that you solve nothing by making them present that logic.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: maybe i want crobat banned because it's purple
<SevenDeadlySins> and i hate purple
<Persistence> I'm sure most will be able to tell the difference between kg and oompaloompa3245
<SevenDeadlySins> but i can't say that
<dubs> sure you do Rising_Dusk
<SevenDeadlySins> so i present a significant argument for banning crobat
<dubs> presenting the logic proves that they care enough to vote
<SevenDeadlySins> therefore
<SevenDeadlySins> even though i intended to vote for a bullshit reason
<Kevin_Garrett> i think that 95% of the people that make any threshold have good intentions for voting
<Rising_Dusk> That they voted at all means they care enough to vote.
<SevenDeadlySins> my vote is backed up by a "logical" reason
<Rising_Dusk> They could play the game and never vote if they wanted.
<Rising_Dusk> All votes are backed up by a "logical" reason to the person making the vote.
<Rising_Dusk> Otherwise you would not vote it.
<dubs> nah there are for sure some personal agendas in voting
<Persistence> unless you were trolling, but that's a useless tangent
<Rising_Dusk> And in forcing paragraphs, you do not avoid any personal agendas.
<Rising_Dusk> That is my point.
<dubs> "porygonz counters my favorite pokemon, i want it voted bl"
<dubs> paragraphs prevent that kind of reasoning
<Rising_Dusk> And they could still think that and BS a paragraph or two to justify it.
<Persistence> I'm pretty sure we are agreed on not having 'paragraphs' as such, at least those of the previous nature
<dubs> right and i don't have a problem with that
=-=WildEep is now known as AFKEep
<Rising_Dusk> Because the reviewer has to be 'fair' and can't assume that they're lying if they present sensible points - even if the reviewer blatantly disagrees with the voter.
<dubs> since they were able to successfully justify it
<Kevin_Garrett> who cares if they are lying though
<SevenDeadlySins> you don't care if they're lying
<Persistence> if something was obviously right then we wouldn't have a vote in the first place
<SevenDeadlySins> you only care if they're using bullshit
<Rising_Dusk> So you're ok with people lying if they justify lying to you, but not if they don't?
<Kevin_Garrett> if their logic is sound, they should vote despite any other motives
<Rising_Dusk> How does that make any sense?
<DougJustDoug> I just don't think paragraphs affect the end result significantly enough to justify all the work and controversy required to implement a paragraph evaluation process.
<Persistence> even if their reasoning is terrible it's worth hearing if only for saying "hey, it's fair"
<SevenDeadlySins> i'm okay with people lying about the reasoning for their vote, as long as their submitted reasoning "makes sense"
<Rising_Dusk> They don't, Doug.
<Rising_Dusk> People will make the metagame they want.
<Rising_Dusk> No matter what you do.
<ete> ^
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Kevin_Garrett> pretty much
<ete> And that is a good thing
<ete> we have to accept it
<Kevin_Garrett> honestly, you can make any pokemon sound uber or ou in a paragraph
<Kevin_Garrett> latais is a perfect example
<ete> you can't exclude it.
<DougJustDoug> I agree. That was the essence of my post in the "What did we learn from gen4 tiering" thread.
<DougJustDoug> @RD, thas is
<DougJustDoug> *that
<Rising_Dusk> Yeah.
<Persistence> I don't believe that there is a better way
--> |Pride (~Pride@synIRC-4433025.msjc.edu) has joined #insidescoop
<Rising_Dusk> So if people make the metagame they want, why are we making them jump through a dozen hoops to do it?
<Rising_Dusk> Why are we forcing our staff to do additional work reviewing?
<Rising_Dusk> Why are we complicating the process at all?
<Kevin_Garrett> maybe we should just have an upper tier
<Kevin_Garrett> with no review
<Persistence> if we drastically cut the length of paragraphs we gain the best of both worlds
<SevenDeadlySins> yup
<DougJustDoug> But, for the record, I don't have any regrets about Gen 4. I agree with eric that it was a "grand experiment".
<SevenDeadlySins> basically do what they did with the council
<SevenDeadlySins> say "submit a short paragraph you assholes"
<Rising_Dusk> Yes, Doug.
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Rising_Dusk> I really don't understand what the obsession with paragraphs is.
<Rising_Dusk> > .<
<Kevin_Garrett> stop using the word paragraphs. if its shortened, does it sound better to say sentences
<Persistence> the word paragraph is thrown around too much
<Rising_Dusk> I'll settle for something like "in 3 sentences explain why this thing should be tiered how you want"
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> darnit kg
<Rising_Dusk> But I refuse to make people type an essay.
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Rising_Dusk> You should see my effing 3-4 vote paragraphs.
<Kevin_Garrett> thats what i want
<Persistence> rd, that is exactly what I'm proposing
<Rising_Dusk> It was retarded.
<Kevin_Garrett> and reading a few sentences from 50 people isnt a lot of work compared to 2,000+ word paragraphs
<Rising_Dusk> I'll "survive" with a 3 sentence justification.
<Persistence> lower reqs + minor justification / upper reqs - skill level assumed to be high enough to not need justification
<Rising_Dusk> But I honestly think it's still unnecessary.
<Rising_Dusk> However, it's better than 3 pages.
<Persistence> ^
<Persistence> though not so much the former sentence
<SevenDeadlySins> right, that's how it worked in uu
<SevenDeadlySins> give a concise justification
|<--Pride has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout)
<Kevin_Garrett> excellent
<SevenDeadlySins> unless you have a high enough level
<Rising_Dusk> Except "Minor justification" was the same extended shit that existed in OU.
<SevenDeadlySins> at which point you go "awesome"
<Kevin_Garrett> hell
<Kevin_Garrett> i think people can even make bullet points if they want
<Rising_Dusk> And you could still get rejected from higher reqs if Jabba thought you were a retard.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: cap the submission length
<Rising_Dusk> Which was amusing that you worked so hard just to get shot down.
<Persistence> Jabba has good judgement
<Persistence> chances are that they *were* retards
<Rising_Dusk> I do not consider Plus a retard.
<SevenDeadlySins> obviously things can get streamlined slightly
<Rising_Dusk> Thank you very much.
<Persistence> this leads smoothly into my next point
<SevenDeadlySins> but these are all minor squabbles and they really "do not matter" in terms of the framework of the process