I think that we really need to get moving with this. I'm going with the old formula here for the following reasons: 1. Collective cutoff is the kind of thing that should perhaps be left until after stats are released, anyway. 2. Discussion seems to indicate that people care a lot more about seeing a Pokémon than having it included in a threat list. 3. Individual cutoff got an overwhelming majority in the poll. The previous thread will remain open because it had some discussion on weighted usage stats that may not be appropriate here, and I did say that the poll wasn't binding. However, I really think that the individual cutoff should be discussed soon. There have been concerns that the cutoff level shouldn't be decided by a poll, so I won't do that. What I will do here is ask what I think is the most important question to be asked about each Pokémon that gets to the heart of the matter: Does a "frequent battler" actually see [Pokémon] over [time interval]? Now, the obvious problem to solve first is how to define a "frequent battler". I'm fairly certain that most of PR battles "frequently", and I would ask people here how often they battle in, say, a day, but "PR" is hardly an objective standard for a "frequent battler". On the other hand, including all battlers is absurd, as from a quick look at PO's usage stats and ranking board (I know, lol PO, but still), I doubt that the "average" account gets even 1.00 battle a day. The reason I ask this is that I often see people saying that the cutoff should be higher, probably because they don't see certain Pokémon in OU. I certainly very rarely saw Electivire in Gen IV OU, though maybe people with worse ratings did (I guess that's a different matter). I think that a day is the most sensible time interval just because we base our cyclic routines on days. A month is another plausible option since we seem to be planning to have usage stats by month. Quoting myself here: x = 0.5 is good for objectivity, but a case could be made for x = 0.95, since 95% is very often used as a benchmark of being certain enough. I suppose I'll use myself as an example. During Round 3, I battled 212 times (T = 212). Plugging x = 0.5 into this gives 0.33%, while x = 0.95 gives 1.40%. Basically, if a Pokémon clocked in at 1.4% usage, I probably saw it. I averaged about 6 battles a day (T = 6) (rounded up to account for missed days). x = 0.5 gives 10.91%, while x = 0.95 gives 39.30%. Interestingly, this means that I'm never really certain of seeing any given Pokémon every day, assuming no Pokémon get that absurd an amount of usage. There are really a lot of ways to go about this; T might not end up being 6 or 212 or whatever. The problem that I have with T = 20 at the moment is that I doubt that even most "frequent battlers" manage 20 battles in a day. I think that this is ultimately the problem that others have with T = 20 as well. Well, that's my rambling on this subject. It's less organized than I would have liked, but it says what I think is important for determining this "step". (BTW, if you ever heard me talking about gathering stats on unique IPs, this is why.) I really hope that people focus on determining how to get objective answers to the questions that I've asked, and not just say, "I think T should be 10," or something similar.