[NU Discussion] Nidoqueen

[Munya]

They haven't made a decision ? ?? ?

[gbwead]

Just now, Munya said:

They haven't made a decision ? ?? ?

The vote is 3-1 for Nidoqueen to get quick banned. That's a decision.

[Munya]

its not, it requires 4 in favor to ban something. We have 5 members, soon to be 6 again.

[Imperial]

A little off-topic from the conversation but I am keen to hear from the Tier Council members who already placed a vote on Nidoqueen, in particular the person who voted for it to stay. The whole issue we were having was a lack of transparency between Tier Council and the community, devs are a completely separate issue, but I've only seen particular members addressing their views and communicating with the wider community like @PoseidonWrath in particular.

 

All I ask for is each Tier Council member to express their views on each suspect test and why they think the Pokemon is healthy or unhealthy for the tier. Maybe I'm wrong and being a part of Tier Council is extremely time-consuming alongside other commitments people have, but then the question is why join it in the first place?

 

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, Munya said:

its not, it requires 4 in favor to ban something. We have 5 members, soon to be 6 again.

You're making up rules as you go. There is nothing in the policy saying you need 4 votes. 

[Munya]

It has been 4 votes for a long time now.

 

"A vote requires a 2/3 majority by the tier council to pass"

[gbwead]

36 minutes ago, Munya said:

It has been 4 votes for a long time now.

That's not true and if it was like this for a long time, how come there is no mention of this absurd requirement in the tiering policy? I can tell you why... because no one would ever agree to such an absurd requirement. It's riddiculous. Stop messing around and just enforce the decision that was made.

edit: Since you are staff, no one can see you edited your previous post where you added the mention "A vote requires a 2/3 majority by the tier council to pass"

Edited April 12, 2023 by gbwead

[Munya]

ITs in the policy.

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, Munya said:

ITs in the policy.

Go ahead. Show us where in the policy it says 4 votes are required for a ban to pass. You won't find that because that requirement would invalidate the entire policy. It's non sense.

[Munya]

[gbwead]

• 3-1 is a 2/3 majority
• This is not a suspect test. Please stop refering to the suspect test section.
• This is quick ban, so there is no 2/3 majority that would even apply anyways.

  Quote

  Quick Bans

   

  Quick bans will be made when a certain aspect (be it a Pokémon, an ability, a move, an item or a combination of the aforementioned) of the metagame becomes so blatantly broken that passing it through a formal discussion or testing period would be a waste of time and effort for everyone. They can circumvent all other normal process and as such are used sparingly. Quick bans will be made according to the following circumstances:

   

  Before the tier council makes any decisions, a thread will be posted in Competition Alley, so that everyone will get the chance to weigh in and potentially influence the decision. There is no time requirement for keeping the thread open prior to a decision. The thread simply serves the purpose of notifying the community that a ban is likely imminent. Note that there does not necessarily need to be action after the thread is opened, a Quick Ban could still be handed down weeks after the creation of the thread if for some reason the tier council feels the need to wait before making a decision. In the OP of the thread, and in comments by community members, there should be at least one mention of the quick ban so that the community knows it is being discussed. When the decision is made, the council will post in the thread and notify the community of the decision. The post will provide the reasons behind the ban.

  
   

[Munya]

3-1 is not how many tc members we have

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, Munya said:

3-1 is not how many tc members we have

What's the vote count?

[Munya]

None because nobody has definitively asked me to start a vote on it, it was mentioned and i replied to them about the at least one vote currently in limbo waiting for more of the test to happen and they never asked to vote anyway.

[LifeStyleNORE]

36 minutes ago, Imperial said:

All I ask for is each Tier Council member to express their views on each suspect test and why they think the Pokemon is healthy or unhealthy for the tier. Maybe I'm wrong and being a part of Tier Council is extremely time-consuming alongside other commitments people have, but then the question is why join it in the first place?

I'm expressing mine when I gather enough data for it, I don't want to make a decision based on 2 weeks of meta development.
It has nothing to do with it being time-consuming (although, it is), but if you expect only people without any real lives to be in it, then you're out of luck I guess.

[gbwead]

Just now, Munya said:

None because nobody has definitively asked me to start a vote on it, it was mentioned and i replied to them about the at least one vote currently in limbo waiting for more of the test to happen and they never asked to vote anyway.

Never asked to vote, but waiting for one specific member to cast their vote.

 

How can you be waiting for someone to cast their vote if a vote was not initiated? This makes no sense.

[Munya]

They have expressed their opinions, at least one person said they needed more time to make their decision - I'm not waiting for anybody, I just warned against the possibility of where the vote will go if that person isn't given adequate time to make an informed decision.  If they want to vote now it can be started, I am stopping nobody from requesting it.

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, Munya said:

I just warned against the possibility of where the vote will go if that person isn't given adequate time to make an informed decision.

Warned of what? It's a quick ban vote. If someone is not ready to vote, they vote "NO" to the quick ban.  What's the issue? That's not preventing Nidoqueen from getting banned at the end of the month. Why are you warning against anything? A tc member asks for quick ban vote. TC members vote. You enforce that decision. It's extremely simple.

[Munya]

19 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Warned of what? It's a quick ban vote. If someone is not ready to vote, they vote "NO" to the quick ban.  What's the issue? That's not preventing Nidoqueen from getting banned at the end of the month. Why are you warning against anything? A tc member asks for quick ban vote. TC members vote. You enforce that decision. It's extremely simple.

You keep saying I am against anything, I am not, I am not against banning something in the middle of the month, I'd PREFER not to during the third month, but not against that either.  You did propose something useful here though and that is the idea of going from a quick ban into standard procedure.  The policy doesn't really cover that, normally it would just end the thread but we can try it out.

[Imperial]

38 minutes ago, LifeStyleNORE said:

I'm expressing mine when I gather enough data for it, I don't want to make a decision based on 2 weeks of meta development.
It has nothing to do with it being time-consuming (although, it is), but if you expect only people without any real lives to be in it, then you're out of luck I guess.

That's fair enough, and about the part I've bolded, I don't expect that at all, just want to hear more from every TC member so thank you for replying.

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Imperial

[caioxlive13]

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

• 3-1 is a 2/3 majority

3-1 considering only valid votes(ignoring abstentions) is a 2/3 majority(75%-25%). However, considering total members of TC, 3-1 isn't a majority(60% on favor, 20% against, 20% Don't voted).

Unless Munya determined a Deadline to vote and the deadline already ended, the vote still not have the majority required

Edited April 12, 2023 by caioxlive13

[CaptnBaklava]

5 hours ago, Munya said:

its not, it requires 4 in favor to ban something. We have 5 members, soon to be 6 again.

When I checked the council a couple of days ago there were 6.

[Munya]

1 hour ago, CaptnBaklava said:

When I checked the council a couple of days ago there were 6.

We've had 5 for about a week and a half now I was just waiting for the okay to look for a new member and the thread wasn't updated while that process was happening.  We are back to 6 now.

[DoubleJ]

So when the vote is 1-0 I guess that's enough to say "oh let's ban it." How silly. We need a valid vote from all members, and if it means "making up rules as we go" then I guess that's the best move. 

 

I'm with @LifeStyleNORE in that we cannot make rash decisions just because of community pressure. 

[CaptnBaklava]

7 hours ago, Munya said:

We've had 5 for about a week and a half now I was just waiting for the okay to look for a new member and the thread wasn't updated while that process was happening.  We are back to 6 now.

Haven't followed tc in a while, is Awax the newest member?