I have rewritten this thread several times trying to express what I wanted to say, but it all ended up missing the point. So, I'm just going to write something short instead.
I want to talk about weighing suspect votes based on your involvement in the tier, rather than treating everyone equally. It makes no sense for someone like me who isn't involved with more than a single tier, to have the same value put to my vote than the actual tier's community. People who has dedicated countless hours of work and are respected, knowledgeable, and/or skilled should be the ones who has the most influence in suspect tests, rather than giving them the same importance as someone who never played the tier before.
The proposal would be to put in some form of objective criteria that increases how much your vote is worth in a suspect test compared to users who just laddered and got reqs when they had never played the tier before. If this is an acceptable proposal, I would like the thread to come to some sort of conclusion what criteria would be the most fitting.
I want to talk about weighing suspect votes based on your involvement in the tier, rather than treating everyone equally. It makes no sense for someone like me who isn't involved with more than a single tier, to have the same value put to my vote than the actual tier's community. People who has dedicated countless hours of work and are respected, knowledgeable, and/or skilled should be the ones who has the most influence in suspect tests, rather than giving them the same importance as someone who never played the tier before.
The proposal would be to put in some form of objective criteria that increases how much your vote is worth in a suspect test compared to users who just laddered and got reqs when they had never played the tier before. If this is an acceptable proposal, I would like the thread to come to some sort of conclusion what criteria would be the most fitting.