okay the second part where you agree that we need to create a balanced metagame until the majority is satisfied pretty much proves our point. however you commit a severe logical fallacy right here by claiming that regardless of what we have to say about bw2, it is a balanced metagame. stop right there look at what you just posted...your own personal opinion about how "balanced" the metagame is, lacking any justification. and alongside this frankly silly line of text you're claiming that our opinions on the metagame hold no weight? at least we justify our opinions, which you fail to do. and btw, if you think the metagame is balanced and we don't, why not hold some more suspect tests? if it's "balanced" like you say it is, then anything we suspect will inevitably stay ou, and if it's not, then we're right and things will continue to be banned until we eventually arrive at a truly balanced metagame. there's no flaw in reasoning here; it logically holds true that if we continue to ban the broken stuff, then eventually there won't be any broken stuff left and we'll be at this balanced metagame that we all supposedly desire. so the only reason you would oppose more suspect tests is if you were afraid that you weren't right, that things in the current metagame are still broken and will inevitably be banned if tested...and coincidentally, that's the exact postulation that we are supporting and you are attempting to shoot down. it's become very clear to me that those who oppose bans simply believe that the metagame right now is "good enough" and have adopted the mentality that we don't need to change any more because it's too hard or it will spoil our precious "good enough" metagame. in other words: that mentality, however, gets us nowhere. if we want a better metagame then it's clear what the solution is: suspect test things until we arrive at a point where all the broken stuff that people complain about no longer exists (or at least no longer exists to such a painfully extreme degree).