Implemented Reduce the Quickban Threshold

[MANNAT]

Currently the threshold to quickban Pokemon are much too high. In OU's most recent ban vote, two different Pokemon were voted OU even though of 6/9 people voted to ban them. This is especially ridiculous because one of them was even previously voted Uber in a suspect test. I believe that this number should be lowered to equal to or greater than 60% to avoid similar situations in the future.

 

[Finchinator]

I would be personally happy lowering it a bit. I agree that things getting 6 of 9 votes to be banned should result in a ban. I think that =2/3 or >60% both would be fine.

 

[Dorron]

Supporting to implement this (60% is fine) and applying it to the last OU voting.

 

[ABR]

Similar message to this thread, either way some form of change should probably occur and seems overall supported.

Tangentially, I know how frustrating it was to be on council and receive complaints but like, maybe the OU Council can prioritize quality over quantity of members? Either people were hastily put on initially, or have remained on too long despite being inactive. Things would be totally functional at 7 or even 5 members too as they always have been.

 

[Karxrida]

I think the current threshold is fine for things that weren't Uber before. Bypassing the Suspect Test process isn't something that shouldn't be taken lightly even if this Gen has been crazy and basically mandated a bunch of quickbans. Everyone should be on the same page acknowledging a test would be a waste of time for a quickban to happen. (Not criticizing the previous quickbans at all fwiw.)

However, the fact both of the Pokémon that escaped the banhammer as a result of the current threshold were Uber before this is ridiculously egregious. Their qualities were already known, with Chien-Pao especially having its time in OU before Home and nothing really changing for it. A 6-3 threshold should have been enough to kick it and Zama-C back up into Ubers.

 

[Finchinator]

Connecting prior Ubers placement to current voting is a flawed concept. A lot can (and will) change between the time when something is Uber and the next generation or release.

A firm threshold that is a bit lower (like the OP suggests) is for the best. It's important that we adapt our tiering to the adapted release schedule Pokemon is using. I feel results like today show that we still have some work to do.

 

[Kalalokki]

Just to give comparison to the current minimum level for council bans that was enacted here, even tho OU chose to use >2/3 after that decision:

Threshold needed	7 council	8 council	9 council	10 council	11 council	12 council
3/5	5	5	6	6	7	8
2/3	5	6	6	7	8	8
>2/3	5	6	7	7	8	9

> 3/5 only affects 10 people council differently than 3/5, needing 7 instead of 6.

 

[MANNAT]

Just to give comparison to the current minimum level for council bans that was enacted here, even tho OU chose to use >2/3 after that decision:

Threshold needed	7 council	8 council	9 council	10 council	11 council	12 council
3/5	5	5	6	6	7	8
2/3	5	6	6	7	8	8
>2/3	5	6	7	7	8	9

> 3/5 only affects 10 people council differently than 3/5, needing 7 instead of 6.

It's impactful in votes where people abstain, such as the ones we just had. For example, a >=2/3 threshold would make 6-3 ban a mon instead of not.

 

[HANTSUKI]

Why do we let council members abstain tho? You sign for the job to make decisions afaik.

 

[Finchinator]

Why do we let council members abstain tho? You sign for the job to make decisions afaik.

We do not normally allow abstain votes, but xavgb is currently in Smogon Tour and WCoP qualifiers, which are both pre-HOME.

There is virtually no other circumstance ever where multiple ongoing official tournaments do not match the current format AND we only have 2 days between votes (he did vote on Regieleki, for example). I think we can all agree that we would rather someone not vote if they are not informed sufficiently yet.

 

[Finchinator]

Regardless, we spoke on this among OUTLs and the tiering admin.

Ultimately, we are going to change it from having to be >2/3 to being >=2/3, meaning if something gets 4 of 6 or 6 of 9 (like the ones on Chien Pao or Zama) votes to be banned in OU, it will count as a ban in the future when it previously did not.

Moving forward, something needs 2/3 of the vote to get quickbanned, not higher than 2/3.

Thank you.