Okay, brace yourselves, I've been giving this a huge amount of thought for quite some time (and spent most of today editing and revising over and over again) so this is basically a massive infodump of almost everything I have to say about this, split between responses to Kei and Kai-V, though ideally the whole thing should be read before responding.
First off, my primary concern is the process, not the decision that resulted from it (i.e. no this isn't about scythe not being banned). I disagree with the decision but it is not what I am challenging, so while I would rather not do so because the whole thing surrounding scythe is the source of a lot of my examples and so on and therefore it would make discussion more difficult, I'm willing to agree to some sort of "truce" like Kai-V suggested if it is necessary so that people understand my sincerity and aims. Hopefully though we're all mature enough that that won't be needed, but either way I will try to separate out scythe stuff as much as possible from my responses.
Anyway:
Kei:
The potential thing depends on the particular combination and wheel, the posts I've made on the topic are specifically only referring to Attack types and certain combinations that have some propensity to self-KO or the like (think MLD CH120XF). Can write up a whole essay to explain the concept and so on, but as a quick run-through as this is beside the point I'm really interested in, generally combinations with a good balance of defense and stamina properties relative to the metagame are going to be/have been at least as successful as testing suggests because they're easy to use and also usually because they do well against outclassed combos (tourney fodder). Obviously access to things plays a part (though not one that should be considered w/ respect to banning a part for being overpowered), but aside from that, Scythe is pretty much the best at all of these properties (best stamina wheel though Duo is a little better than some, best defense wheel, etc etc etc).
I'm honestly a little surprised to find this isn't just commonly accepted knowledge as to me it's very simple, logical and very much borne out by the winning combinations thread in its entirety, so that does actually make me think that the decision making process could benefit from taking more perspectives into account or at least being more transparent (eg had I known this was the case then I would have written something up about it a long time ago). It is also something I mentioned (at least as it applied to the context) in the discussion about Scythe that went completely un-responded to which I feel should have been discussed at the time (alongside the validity of tournament usage when AA2's aren't that common and the reasons that I'm concerned about it in spite of that relative rarity).
As for other stuff regarding Scythe and what little discussion there was, I responded to everything well in advance and if I recall correctly the mold thing hadn't been nearly as settled at the point you mention. Either way, Nocto and I both provided alternatives for handling the situation with appropriate care, and I've repeatedly explained why I feel testing alone is enough to ban it in this particular case (which is repeated in a more general sense above), again with no response.
Aside from things I've responded to here, I'm pretty sure everything else you've mentioned about Scythe and Gravity has already been responded to or explained in the various relevant threads, which only makes me more concerned about how much consideration this decision was really given. Still, not my main issue.
On staff having earned respect and trust, it's besides the point if there is no tangible benefit to keeping something behind closed doors. Seeing as you asked, however, I will give an honest answer, so please don't take it as being disrespectful, I respect you all, and you do a great job of running the organization and so forth, and if I didn't I wouldn't have bothered making this post (nor spending so much time editing it). I do feel that because you are only human beings, because there are only a small number of you, and as well as in small part the unavoidable consequences of a largely self-selecting body (which is not something I have any issue with, in case it sounds that way), that there *might* be room for improvement in terms of decisionmaking with regards to decisions such as this, where a little more public input/feedback and maybe a little more manpower could be helpful in doing certain things and representing certain views. As I said, it's not really relevant to what I'm trying to address here, and again, please don't take it as disrespectful.
Anyway, making good decisions is important and valuable, yes, and the committee rarely if ever makes decisions that could be called "bad", but making those decisions in the correct manner is extremely important in making the community feel that they're being listened to, that their thoughts are considered, and also letting them have greater insight into why certain things occur or what is going on and so forth (for example - certain things just seem to disappear without any response from the committee, often things where one of the options is maintaining the status quo, and in such case we would all benefit by seeing why). If I didn't trust that the process was something that would make sense and so on, then I more than likely would have much more to say with regards to changes than I do or in general be less forthright about it (FWIW I've heard conflicting descriptions, but none of them affect my assessment that there are only gains to be had here, mostly just the magnitude of said gain).
As for efficiency, I've included one of my suggestions (my personal favourite) in response to Kai-V's post later in this post, and as mentioned have various other ideas that may be more acceptable as well, but it's definitely something I considered with regards to this and would be very glad to discuss that further.
Basically, the main thing I'm suggesting is that the portion of the decisionmaking process for rulings that currently occurs behind closed doors instead be done in public - as I see it, there shouldn't be any significant cost to doing so, even if it is a very small process or whatever, it will at least let people know what's going on and generally feel more connected to the decisions that get made on the things they post about (not to mention generally improving trust and so on).
Kai-V:
Oh, I didn't mean "peons" it in that sense (slave is the original meaning but it also refers to people held in low regard/with little authority, which is what I was going for - I was at best only peripherally aware of the original meaning until you mentioned it, to be honest), probably still too fiery/controversial, should've gone with the standard "rest of us" or w/e, but it's too late now so eh. Anyway:
I think the start of this post already answers the "what is this about" thing, so I'll skip over that. I covered most of my thoughts and reasoning in response to Kei, so I'll try to focus more on what I'm suggesting and so on as well as anything you specifically raised.
As an example (which may not be necessary to read if you already know what I'm talking about), there has been no public agreement on whether Gravity is actually broken - it's strong, and most of us accept that it is too strong in at least one combination or another, but broken is a separate concept and discussion about it very specifically avoided calling it that. Contrary to your stated expectations, a number of people in NC (one of the places where the winning combos were rather gravity-centric) were opposed to banning Gravity, and at least one of them has been one of the most vocal opponents of it in this very thread, of particular relevance is their explanation of why it isn't as big an issue as it appeared to be from the winning combinations list. I know how busy you are, but you have to admit that this kinda demonstrates my point here about not paying enough attention to the community, seeing as that is definitely something that should have come up seeing as it was a central point in the pro-ban argument.
The fact that a tournament in that very area was coming up so soon combined with his explanation was pretty solid justification to hold off for that tournament and see what happened (personally given more notice I'd have suggested consulting the members of that particular community for their thoughts about the particular issue, seeing as it's their tournament being affected) - generally speaking the whole rushed update thing should've been managed better and had the suggestion been public from the get go there's a better chance that the issues with regards to giving enough notice could have been addressed and so on, avoiding the confusion we saw.
With regards to staff being busy people with busy lives being an issue, as I see it that is a part of effective community management, so if it's a problem in this regard then it needs to be addressed. At the least, people being able to see the whole decision making process with regard to ruling issues such as this (and perhaps/preferably others that do not require secrecy) will go a long way to addressing any concerns along the lines of things not being taken into account or inadequate discussion or whatever.
The biggest cost to you guys would be that certain things (basically those where maintaining the status quo is a feasible option which are also kinda tough issues and so on, things like the ruling changes a couple of us opposed a while ago) would have to be given a (generally final) public verdict rather than just left (almost certainly unintentional, so perhaps this isn't a downside at all), which could mean a little more work, but if that's an issue I'm sure something could be done to fix it (I have one or two mostly-formed ideas bouncing around, if you're interested, let me know).
As stated in my response to Kei, if said viewpoints are not all sufficiently considered (as certain things that have been said indicate to me personally, but overall it's mostly besides the point and I'm just including this to show more possible benefits) then that is also something that would be at least partially addressed by making the whole thing publicly visible (possibly fully depending on the selection).
My suggestion on how to achieve this is that instead of having such decisions and whatever related discussion that happens take place in private, that it instead be done in the advanced forum (which I think is what Ingulit wanted for this format), as the criteria and activity level make it very well suited to that (being a staff member requires additional attributes on top of what is relevant to such decisions, so therefore it's an unnecessary restriction). Again I'm not entirely sure what the exact process is and thus can't give any more specific details or whatever but generally speaking the various things I've heard at least indicates it should translate pretty easily.
Obviously though, that is only one suggestion and I have a few alternative ideas and so on which might be preferable.
We're all working toward the same goal here - the good of this organization and the community around it, and I'm sure you know that transparency and general relations with the userbase are two issues I've always cared very strongly about (especially as in this case it has been affecting me personally) so while much of this is based on recent events, discussions, and trends, hopefully you understand that this isn't a fleeting issue to me, as well as my sincere hope that significant good comes from this.
EDIT: FWIW Dark_Mousy just told me that despite being legal, Gravity didn't do all that great at NC today, and suggestions of that being possible were a big part of the 'do not ban' argument. Further examination is of course needed but it is at least something worth noting.
Here's the winning combos list thanks to TBD:
http://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Winning-...pid1189811
![[Image: 68vfxj.jpg]](https://oi57.tinypic.com/68vfxj.jpg)
![[Image: UwZsp7A.png]](https://i.imgur.com/UwZsp7A.png)
![[Image: 20af95v.png]](https://i61.tinypic.com/20af95v.png)
![[Image: 29c0thl.png]](https://i60.tinypic.com/29c0thl.png)
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
![[Image: shining_sig.jpg]](https://s25.postimg.org/ni454yfgv/shining_sig.jpg)
![[Image: TBC_Coach.png]](https://s27.postimg.org/wcxl5x66r/TBC_Coach.png)