Oh sorry maybe I phrased that wrong, I meant instead of rating the games against each other in a list, just rate them individually through discussion, independent of other games and not ranking them at all. Then we could have a list of games with ratings but not in any discernable order, so we'd avoid the whole "how is _____ ahead of _____" crap you get with those lists.

When it comes to second wave of eliminations, I feel there HAS to be some sort of discussion. Maybe not as thorough the final scoring discussions, but people have to be able to come up with SOME compelling reason that a game brings enough to the table to be worth discussing further.

I'm not sure what the realistic difference is between making a top 100 and rating games against each other. I thought that the top 100 would be the same thing, but just cutting every game past #100 off when all was said and done. Maybe I was wrong. But I'm not opposed to the idea.

Another option is to do away with the idea of ranking them against each other, and simply make this process about applying a comprehensive rating to each individual game, much like GameFAQs does. My goal then would be to devise a system of rating that is better than theirs, which would be a fun topic of discussion in itself. Do think this would be a more viable pursuit than the top 100 list itself?

As far as the margins of elimination, I've already made it so a game simply must receive more yes votes than no. What I could do is make this first wave of voting simply for the purpose of weeding out the obvious losers, and then a second wave of eliminations can be for the tougher decisions. The requirements for elimination would change with each round, to accommodate this. What do you think?

Well, an idea that occurred to me was something along the lines of a redemption, where certain games could be "brought back" from elimination. This would give games like CoD a deserved second chance, but the problem lies in how to achieve that. A popular vote would be useless there because the same people who voted it out the first time would vote it out again. A discussion is viable, but I would be forced to give myself more power--the power to judge the arguments, which I'm hesitant to do. I suppose it's inevitable though, as not all of the users are equal as far as intelligence goes.

The best that can come out of this is hopefully smogonites just debating about good games in a civil manner. That's lofty hopes but it is what I hope to see. At the very least you could really loosen your margins for a game being eliminated.

Even in a field that is generally considered subjective people still feel they know the difference between a 9 and a 10, or a 3 and 4. But what is the difference between an 84 and an 85? When someone sees a top 100 list they don't really know what to do with it, so they fixate on things like "Why is game #85 not higher than game #34?" "Why is game #99 so low on the list?". Next you have the vastly diminished margin for the reader's opinion. On a top ten list if the reader's favorite game is left out the first thought is "Maybe it would be #11?". Why not right, if they are so certain of the game's value? And number 11 isn't bad. But #101? No, now the first thought is "I bet they didn't even consider it" then "which means they must be ignorant".

I'm sorry it came to that, but I still don't see much effort on your part and some of your attitude about it rubs me the wrong way. Obviously the last thing I want to hear are reasons for less discussion.

When I said institute a veto rule, I meant to allow users the power of veto in some fashion. Maybe it would even be a step after the pool cleaning, but it would correct the major problem with pool cleaning - the stripping of discussion. I don't think any amount of discussion allowed is generous, with no reason to post in the thread right now there is absolutely no reason to not allow it.

Making lists is fun. If you feel burdened, my honest is to stop. It would be a shame, but this is not a burden anyone has to bare. There are numerous subconscious reasons that a Top 100 is bound for failure. For starters it's a lot like rating a game on a scale of 100 as opposed to a scale of 10.

I'm sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but you attacked me and I am defending myself. I have great respect for you and your knowledge, which is why I take the time to respond to you and actually consider your suggestions. I would expect the same respect and courtesy from you, rather than insulting me.

Further, I don't exercise veto power because I believe that's not fair to everyone else. Why should I have the absolute power to change a vote the community has spoken on? As unbiased as I attempt to be, I'm still human and imperfect. I am not going to sit here and pretend my view of a game is better than anyone else's, so vetoing a vote is not fair.

I am well aware of how futile this endeavor seems to you. It's probably too much to ask for Smogon to be sensible when they evaluate games. However, I wouldn't have begun this process if I didn't have confidence in my intelligence and ability to find a way to make it work. As I told you before, I am open to suggestions if you really think you have the answer. However, what I am not open to is complaining about how bad my work is without offering a solution. Until you actually take the time to devise and suggest a better way to do what I am doing, you are being just as "lazy" as you accuse me of doing.