[NU Discussion] Nidoqueen

[gbwead]

8 hours ago, DoubleJ said:

So when the vote is 1-0 I guess that's enough to say "oh let's ban it." How silly.

If the vote is 3-0 for a quick ban and 1 member refuses to vote, that member would based on your logic prevent any ban from happening. That's even more silly.

[DoubleJ]

2 hours ago, gbwead said:

If the vote is 3-0 for a quick ban and 1 member refuses to vote, that member would based on your logic prevent any ban from happening. That's even more silly.

You're talking without merit. This is more transparent than we need to be, but a vote has been opened, and only just opened for Nidoqueen. Voting is ongoing and will continue until we have all votes or a definitive majority, which for our council is a total of 4 to meet the 2/3 requirement.

[gbwead]

22 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

You're talking without merit. This is more transparent than we need to be, but a vote has been opened, and only just opened for Nidoqueen. Voting is ongoing and will continue until we have all votes or a definitive majority, which for our council is a total of 4 to meet the 2/3 requirement.

You gave an example. I replied by also giving an example. I don't see what merit has to do with any of this.

[DoubleJ]

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

You gave an example. I replied by also giving an example. I don't see what merit has to do with any of this.

Your declarations of a "3-0" vote are essentially spreading false information and misleading the community.

[gbwead]

23 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

Your declarations of a "3-0" vote are essentially spreading false information and misleading the community.

It's an example!! Just like your 1-0 example. 

[DoubleJ]

23 hours ago, gbwead said:

I think it's unacceptable that TC has voted for Nidoqueen to get quick banned by a 3-1 vote and yet you are interfering with the result of that vote. You are supposed to enforced the decisions of the TC, not prevent their decisions.

22 hours ago, gbwead said:

The definition doesn't contradict the policy, the only person contradicting the tiering policy is you. This is not a suspect test. If the vote is 3-1 for a quick ban, Nidoqueen needs to be quick banned.

 

22 hours ago, gbwead said:

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

 

22 hours ago, gbwead said:

• 3-1 is a 2/3 majority

 

Those are pretty definitive statements and someone not following along would think that the TC has voted, Munya is blocking a final decision, and Nidoqueen is being inappropriately kept in the tier. False information and not just an example by my evaluation.

A vote has recently been opened for Nidoqueen and we are awaiting results.

[gbwead]

Hold on @DoubleJ

 

 

My 3-0 statement is just an example in reply to your 1-0 example. Both are equally silly. I'm not talking without merit. This was just an example, not me spreading misinformation ...

Now, the 3-1 vote I stated earlier is nothing more than what was shared with the community on the PokeMMO Colosseum discord. I didn't make it up. You have to understand that from an outsider perspective what has been shown on this thread is a big push to make this thread look like a suspect test (like I explained, it isn't). This is not a good look when we are presented with a 3-1 vote to ban Nidoqueen. 

 

Anyhow, I'm glad there is finally a vote on Nidoqueen. In the future, I believe more transparency in these procedures would go a long way.

[caioxlive13]

15 hours ago, gbwead said:

Now, the 3-1 vote I stated earlier is nothing more than what was shared with the community on the PokeMMO Colosseum discord. I didn't make it up. You have to understand that from an outsider perspective what has been shown on this thread is a big push to make this thread look like a suspect test (like I explained, it isn't). This is not a good look when we are presented with a 3-1 vote to ban Nidoqueen. 

Still not a decision for 5 TC members(now 6). 2/3 is required. We don't know if the member that didn't voted yet would say NO or YES to quickban. If Munya determined a deadline to vote, and the same expired, yea, i'd agree with you to the mon gets banned, because the remaining TC member was abstent and didn't voted, so the valid votes indicates a 2/3 majority. However, is very clear that Munya didn't determined a deadline.

Also now TC has 6 members(Munya sayed it here: 

On 4/12/2023 at 11:52 PM, 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.

So i'm not spreading fake news. )

so you only need that one of two remaining members vote Yes, Gbwead.

[gbwead]

31 minutes ago, caioxlive13 said:

Still not a decision for 5 TC members(now 6). 2/3 is required. We don't know if the member that didn't voted yet would say NO or YES to quickban. If Munya determined a deadline to vote, and the same expired, yea, i'd agree with you to the mon gets banned, because the remaining TC member was abstent and didn't voted, so the valid votes indicates a 2/3 majority. However, is very clear that Munya didn't determined a deadline.

Also now TC has 6 members(Munya sayed it here: 

So i'm not spreading fake news. )

so you only need that one of two remaining members vote Yes, Gbwead.

• I already said I'm against the quick ban. I don't know what you are talking about me wanting someone to say YES. I'm not opposed to Nido getting banned at the end of the month, just not a big fan of it getting quick banned.
• There is no 2/3 majority required for quick bans (you can check yourself in the policy)
• According to what was presented to us, there was a 3-1 vote. If someone refuses to vote, that's on them. They can't hold the entire TC hostage while they make up their mind. Allowing such behaviour would allow a single member to stall out any decision or procedure they wish to stop. It would become impossible for anything to ever get quick banned.
• Deadlines for voting is a good idea. I don't think that's how votes are handled right now, but I could be wrong.

[Munya]

For quickbans there's not really a deadline, end of the month voting is typically over at the time of tier changes though.  Quick bans have surprisingly little procedure considering how seriously they are treated in the thread only to be used sparingly.  After this vote ends there will be some changes coming for the procedure for them.

[caioxlive13]

16 minutes ago, Munya said:

For quickbans there's not really a deadline, end of the month voting is typically over at the time of tier changes though.  Quick bans have surprisingly little procedure considering how seriously they are treated in the thread only to be used sparingly.  After this vote ends there will be some changes coming for the procedure for them.

Since meta is 100% unstable due to HAs, i think Quick Ban Procedment should be revised. We would use it a lot in lower tiers. Vaporeon and Nidoqueen on this month are the main targets to a Quick-ban.

Edited April 14, 2023 by caioxlive13

[PoseidonWrath]

Nidoqueen has been quick banned by a mayority vote. The Tier Council deems that Nidoqueen fits Offensive Uber characteristics and will be removed immediately from the NU tier.

The ban will take effect after the upcoming NU tournament, 24 hours or less is just not enough time for people to prepare.