Very simple question: if two 'democratic' countries (one bigger, one smaller) voted on the same kind of law in basically the same way - is it somehow unreasonable to compare the two just because only one of them has 1st-world financial markets?
is it "basically the same way", though? the whole point that everyone else is trying to make is that we
don't do things the same way as natdex does. they made the choice early on in gen 8 dlc1 to switch to the kokoloko system of "quickban en masse first, test down later", which i
think they no longer follow (?), but ever since then they've been a lot quicker to ban than the regular tiers are. ou
also had a vote on whether or not to adopt the kokoloko system in a survey at the beginning of this dlc and it was resoundingly rejected (including by myself). so, to extend your country metaphor, these two countries
did vote on the same law—the law governing the way they hold future votes—in the same way, and they came to two
different results, both of which work in their individual countries but might not work in the other one, and that
does make it unreasonable to compare how the two approach issues
This is why I think the two of you are tunnel-visioning on the fact that my example was from nat dex. Minor discrepancies in interpretations of tiering policies subject to arbitration is ultimately missing the point.
again, they're not minor discrepancies, they were using an entirely different system over there for a while and it's had lasting effects on their tiering policy as a whole
I literally never said I disagreed with this sentiment. All I said is that council has had double standards about similar tiering decisions.
it's not "double standards" at all. these so-called "similar tiering decisions" occurred in
very different environments—metas that needed to be tiered faster because they only existed for a matter of months. this is a longer-term meta that won't be irreversibly replaced by a future one like pre-dlc and dlc1 were, even when the next gen comes out and the effective lifespan for this one is over. we have actual time to let things settle, which is what we're doing. (now my personal opinion is that the things that changed due to the gouging fire ban don't affect kyurem's brokenness so a suspect in the near future is still warranted, but whether that happens depends on whether the council wants to hold a survey first)
I actually don't understand what you mean by this inquiry. Are you saying this because you assume I'm against Kyurem getting tiering action? (Spoiler alert: I'm not, I'm just not as opinionated about the thing) Or are you saying this because you misinterpreted what I meant by 'props for admitting this would be a mistake'? If it's the latter, see above.
i'll be honest with you bud, the only one who understood your "mistake" line was you. it was kinda vague what "this" was referring to and you never really explained the nature of the "mistake"
View attachment 669280
Me being a bit snark with you shouldn't really matter when the fact of the matter is, if you want to spend 6 pages breaking down why the handling of ND is somehow a false equivalency beyond this vague as hell 'higher standards' sentiment, I'd be glad to hear it.
you should be more worried about "subtract hominem", which is the logical fallacy where you get kicked out of the debate hall for incessantly pointing out everything you think is a fallacy
If I'm not allowed to point out the fact that lazer is an avouch Stalinist, the fact that I've posted MentisWave guides to rationalist arguments that you can't be bothered to watch literally should not matter to you or this thread. I didn't even strictly disagree with you on Kyurem (again...).
Learn to read next time.
this is not a "rationalist argument", it's a dogwhistle and i'm pretty sure you know it is
Now, mind if we pack it in for a bit?
yes, in fact, i do mind. you don't get to say "whoa whoa whoa guys calm down" for an argument that you started. come back here and lose like a man
