A lot of competitive players and mods/admins have gathered recently on the IRC and in many places to discuss the changes they would like to see to the OU Suspect testing process, things such as speeding up the process, voting reqs, percentage of votes needed for a ban decision, etc.
These are some of the most agreed upon proposals:
1) The OU council should set clear guidelines on how to judge a pokemon for brokenness, a clear stance on what defines a pokemon, complex bans, and so on.
2) The percentage of votes needed to ban a pokemon should be 66% (two thirds) or above, a decisive majority instead of the current simple majority (50%) in place now.
3) Speeding up the testing process which we feel is too slow. We also believe discussions and subsequently suspect testing should have a fixed interval, every month or so, to decide on whether or not there is something that merits testing.
4) If the metagame has been found stable, retesting OU pokemon that have been voted uber based on metagame changes, new releases and new pokemon.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcomed, hopefully this thread isn't stepping on any red lines or such.
These are some of the most agreed upon proposals:
1) The OU council should set clear guidelines on how to judge a pokemon for brokenness, a clear stance on what defines a pokemon, complex bans, and so on.
2) The percentage of votes needed to ban a pokemon should be 66% (two thirds) or above, a decisive majority instead of the current simple majority (50%) in place now.
3) Speeding up the testing process which we feel is too slow. We also believe discussions and subsequently suspect testing should have a fixed interval, every month or so, to decide on whether or not there is something that merits testing.
4) If the metagame has been found stable, retesting OU pokemon that have been voted uber based on metagame changes, new releases and new pokemon.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcomed, hopefully this thread isn't stepping on any red lines or such.