I think that with such a close vote, that it would be as Aeolus said, irresponsible to call the vote either way. I have a suggestion though. Why don't we make a thread in Policy Review, and have the staff members and the other PR members discuss Shaymin-S, and try to work something out?
do you not realize that this is exactly what was suggested as a solution to tiering suspects this summer? we decided to let the community have a say in this stuff to be fair to the actual community, even though we knew that it is largely comprised of people that do not have a firm handle on the nuances of competitive pokemon. bold voting threads originated in PR and were moved to stark mountain after having been "started on the right track". if we were to do this, regardless of how "elitist" it would be, it would render the entire last month with respect to skymin worthless. it would render x-act's mathematical analysis of 1655 rating/65 deviations worthless. it would render the efforts of the community worthless, both from the "competing on the ladder for a month" perspective that the more diligent and process-respectful battlers demonstrated, and, to a lesser extent, the "i want to give the reasoning i've thought up even though i dont have to because this is how much i care" perspective. to waver on whatever the decision of the final vote is would be to slap basically everyone in the face.
it has not been a secret that "policy review members" are smarter than the general population. this is from a recent tangerine post in PR:
(and considering I was never for letting people just vote on the issue but rather have people argue it out in an "innocent until proven guilty" fashion). The idea within the voting scheme is that people are aware of the intentions behind the changes in the rules (to create the most competitive ruleset, not "what they like better").
This is why I believe that we should be judging the reasons - although I doubt anyone would be willing to go through that arduous task at this point.
he has maintained this forever, and to be totally honest with you, i don't blame him one bit and actually agree with him. i dont give a shit how it sounds here because this is IS, so i will say it anyway—the community is largely comprised of people who don't really know shit about the game and/or smogon's philosophy. we both would rather PR members argue this out rather than people just voting uber/ou, even if it would only have saved weeks and weeks of time if not also being a better idea given the community's proclivity towards voting for "what they like better". there is also the idea of the "elitism" behind the select handful of PR members deciding on the tiering of pokemon for the thousands who play and will play in our community, but i am less worried about that than the fact that what is being suggested is both elitist and
an essential disregarding of the last month+ of efforts we have put forth for skymin, and months and months more than that if we think that this can't easily happen again with later suspects whose votes are close.
do not forget—tangerine's originally tally for dx-s was 41-40. this is the only reason there even had to be a second tally. if he had gotten something like 47-34 or whatever, i don't think anyone would have called for a "recount". the thing is that it very well could have gone 47-31 or 45-28 if he had not willingly accepted votes with "weak arguments" (his words). however, i'm not bringing that up to throw tangerine under the bus. i'm bring that up because he had to even consider doing that because
the community largely does not know how to voice a convincing argument on pokemon. this is why the process failed more than any inherent biased on either his or my part.
so now, we have moved on to the rating/deviation process that has battle skill as a supposed screen for "competitive intelligence". however, the efficacy of the vote is still predicated on the trust of our community to not vote for "what they like better". while this trust may have been a little misplaced, it's better placed in the part of the community that was willing and able (more willing than able in some cases) to reach the 1665/65 marks, and i don't think anyone will argue that these voters aren't a better crop than the "just anyones" of the bold vote process. everyone seemed to agree that this process was better...until it actually becomes evident that the vote could be close? ok, so are we, in PR, now allowed to be subjective with the results just because we're smarter than everyone else? again, i have zero problem with this, no matter how it may come off in this thread, but realize that this would be exactly what we would be doing if we were to ignore even a slight majority from the process "we all agreed" was best now.
(re)read the first two posts of this thread
, especially mekkah's post. what would we accomplish with a PR thread about this? even if the vote finishes at 55% (i dont even know if uber is leading right now and i'm not even going to check because that's how little it matters), we are still going to be disappointed "45%" of the community, if the suspect test voters are indeed the population that is supposed to be indicative of the community (they are). a lot of people are going to be disappointed on wherever we place skymin for the next 9-11 months.
the entire reason it was a suspect in the first place is because it was not, and, now, is not obvious one way or another whether it were/is uber, and this evidently cannot be stressed enough. but if the rest of you still agree that we should take action just because the vote was close, how about latias? or latios even? do you think we wouldn't have to do this again because there will "probably be" a larger majority in those cases? are we seriously just going to "hope the vote isn't close" with suspects going forward? i honestly hope not, because that would seriously be some of the worst theorymon imaginable, given what the implications would be for tiering suspects from now on. i am saying all this because, if we do not decide, right now, to scrap any voting process and just go with the intuition of PR members to tier suspects going forward, we are going to doom ourselves to the same month+ of bullshit second-guessing that some of you are considering now. and it would not only be a big, big waste of time, but it would also entirely undermine the value we have in the voice of the supposedly-competitively intelligent community. do we really want to do this?