Asylum_Rhapsody

I don't think that's the problem, at least not all of it. I think that the problem is that people are coming away from reading the selected concept submission with entirely different ideas or visions about what it could actually mean, so when they then read your OP, they're reading through the lens of their own interpretation of the concept, which may not be the same as your interpretation of the concept or your preferred interpretation of the concept. I think that's part of what's leading to the confusion.

Was that a response to my comment about Rock? Because my comment had nothing to do with defensive Rock. It had to do with offensive Rock.

The problem, though, if people come away from reading the concept with a different interpretation than yours, is that your descriptions could look confusing and unnecessarily narrow or specific, prematurely disallowing for other perceived perfectly legitimately desirable visions of the concept's execution.

I don't think that that's the only interpretation of the concept that is different from yours. My interpretation of the concept, for instance, appears to be different from yours, but that's not my interpretation of the concept, to take a typing that's simply "bad" (as you yourself said, most types are a mixed bag, not simply "bad"). My preferred interpretation of the concept is making a Pokemon of a type normally considered undesirable for its intended role, like a mono-Steel offensive Pokemon (where Steel is considered offensively undesirable, example Steel Arceus) or a Grass/Psychic defensive Pokemon (where Grass and Psychic are considered defensively undesirable, example Celebi).

This is counter to something like a Fire/Bug offensive Pokemon (where Fire and Bug are considered offensively desirable, example Volcarona), because while that typing may be considered undesirable defensively, we're not actually attempting to use it in a defensive role, so no "Extreme Typing Makeover" is actually required. The game reacts normally to Volcarona because it's typing is very typically good offensively (it's expected to be good in that role and is) and very typically bad defensively (it's expected to be bad in that role and is). Like the concept creator said, and I think this describes the concept and its draw very well, we're trying to turn a "bad" typing around from a hindrance to an asset. But, we can't do that and ignore roles. Again, using Volcarona, as an offensive Pokemon, Fire/Bug is not an offensive hindrance, so Volcarona would not be a good example of this concept. If Volcarona were a successful defensive Pokemon, in that case Fire/Bug normally being a hindrance but somehow being turned around into an asset defensively, then it would be an example of the concept.

EDIT: As others have said on #cap, though, it's getting pretty close to "agree-to-disagree" time. You are the TL, and if you should put your foot down, then I'll try to contribute in a way that fits both your vision and mine (which I think is possible). I just want to get this out there to see if we can resolve the confusion or better understand the disagreement.