It has been an issue recently (not any major problems or anyone in particular, however) that we simply do not have a guideline as to what sets we are to allow on site. Well I've come here to hopefully help create that guideline (with help from you guys as well). I want to set an official standard as to what sets we let on site and which sets we reject. This will solve many of the disputes that have arisen in the QC forums. Obviously, many people see the actual purpose of analyses completely differently. Some see them as a guideline for which sets are good and how to use them. Some see them as tools to show information on what Pokemon could possibly be running. Neither of these are wrong, because it's how we use them that gives them their purpose. Unfortunately, we need to come to some sort of conclusion as to exactly which sets we allow on site. I think, if we want to be more inclusive and have a larger database, then it would seem that whatever set is "viable" by someone should be listed. So therefore, I think we should follow this guideline about which sets are "viable" and thus should be on-site: It has nothing to do with other Pokemon. For example, SubLO Espeon is still viable even though Alakazam does it better. It has very little to do with the Pokemon's other sets. For example, just because Venusaur's best set is the Special Life Orb set, that does not mean that it's other good sets don't get on site. The one exception here is that we do not allow 2 sets per Pokemon that do the same thing, one is better than the other or they can be slashed. Usable does not necessarily mean viable, because anything can be used. Viability implies that the set is effective at doing its job, and if it isn't it won't be approved (because it isn't competitive). Note: This creates a bit of an inconsistency between QC and stats, however I think QC should be the final authority on this matter. It is their job to figure out if anyone could remotely use this set viably. There will likely not be many incidents in which QC will be inconsistent with stats, however we should have a plan if the situation occurs. If there are many users that feel strongly against QC's decision, then that set should be reevaluated. Anything further becomes significantly more subjective, so I would prefer to leave it out. Anyway, here's where you guys come in. What do you think? Did I nail it or do you think there is a better way to do it? Thanks for reading (but, please actually read it...it's not that long).