Posting for the third fucking time bless the system
-------------------
I've already expressed my views in a IS post (tl;couldn't-read: "Personally find it ridiculous that council decided that since the vote didn't go the way they wanted they were going to decide the meta for the community.") but I'll add onto that here
First I'll point out several flaws with council voting. I think it's ok to have council votes on stuff like gravspore or on swagger, or on something new, but for something established in the meta for a solid ~2 years, this isn't necessary. I take issues with council voting because I do NOT think that council reflects our playerbase (see players such as stax not being on council, inactive players currently on council). Hell, look at how long every single viability ranking vote takes if you want a demonstration that council is insufficiently active/connected with the community. I will defend this point to the grave so if you think I'm wrong please engage in that discussion.
I don't think you can legitimately push that the pool of people who wanted either Azu or Jirachi banned was >20%. Anyone who held that view could have been easily facilitated with a run-off vote, which would be formatted literally the exact same way that the council vote was.
I also don't think you've addressed at all how bullshit it was that we HAD 2 suspect votes and neither succeeded, and then council just decided for the community. Spinning it as a "suspect voting can't handle the fact that it was a PAIR that was problematic" is flawed (as pointed out, run-off vote solves this, and I doubt you can say that players who voted ban on one but no-ban on the other is enough to be 20% of the voters). Nothing can change the fact that ~60% of players are unsatisfied that Jirachi got banned by council, according to voting data.
Regardless if you think "oh this one was mishandled, but it'll be okay in the future if we communicate more in the future" the very fact that council did this reflects their inability to have an open-door discussion. As a doubles player and mother of 3 brushies, the way council has handled this vote reflects poorly on their ability to both connect with the community and to be open to player input. I doubt that if we let this kind of thing fly that future hypothetical council suspect votes will be handled in a good manner, given what we've seen.
Yeah, if we added 3 community members it'd still be 5-4, but we have ~100+ players depending on your metric.
correction on some technicality: by run-off I meant the 2-part system that council used whatever the fuck that's called