Why would stricter footmarks mean that I want only people who dislike tera to vote? Seems like your implying that people who are pro-tera can't get the reqs needed to vote
Oh no, I fully believe pro-tera people can achieve reqs, and thats vindicated by the recent NDOU suspect test. I don't believe that safeguards could be in any way impartial in all but skill.
My belief in the idea that "stricter footmarks" would prevent pro-tera votes from occuring lies precisely in the fact that people aren't blind, and that biases would rise up out of those restrictions and safeguards. Theres a good few reasons as to why we have the standard of voting that we do, and even someone who can't attain them
should be able to understand them.
One of which, the one pertaining to why its only a matter of ELO/wolf-glicko, is that skill is what matters, not opinion. The 6th gen vote that was an utter fiasco disregarded that, and invoked the reason for voting in the first place as a "safeguard". Obviously, should a tier owner or owners in the council
of nerds feel sufficiently opinionated, they could disregard any voter they disagreed with, and thus ruin the point of the suspect; said point being a community vote on a serious and divisive issue. Quickbans are typically, and ought to be, reserved for things that would be a waste of a lengthy vote due to their immediate problem(s).
Lets wrap back around to skill mattering over opinion. Skill is not linked to how someone votes, no matter how you twist the data. A no-ban and a ban voter will have to meet the same skill requirements, which so far no other indicator, safeguard, or restriction can pull off.
So, why would someone want to instill another filter? Personally, I think its due to bias in the instiller, and they would want to make voting harder for those they disagree with. Not surprising given that the one in discussion, i.e. you, didn't meet the normal requirements. This may come off as harsh, and probably uncalled for, but I sincerely doubt your failure to meet reqs and vote was due to your opinion on Tera, nor was it due to other people voting in any which way, but rather due to your own lack of skill. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think your thoughts on how the vote was carried out matter, since seemingly
everyone else was accepting of the results. Would they agree with them is up to them, and not up to me, or to you.
Yes, I have my own biases, and if they aren't apparent, let me make them clear: Tera is good for the OU meta. However, I do not try to change how suspect tests go because of them, nor do I think lesser of those who gets reqs yet disagree with me. Hell, I think better of them because they are more skilled than I am, whether or not I am happy with such outcomes. I may throw a shitfit, but thats all it is at the end of the day: a shitfit from someone that didnt get their way.
Im done with you, so please explain your contradictions and log off. It does wonders for my mental health at least.