You're right, I didn't go in and accurately dissect and disseminate individual arguments for each and individual ban because they would detract from the original point and get mired in the details - something which you're very frequently opposed to in your own posts. So sorry for being generic and general, to a knee-jerk community where at best it's extremely difficult to get your point across.
It is not difficult to get your point across, but your sarcastic attitude here is not fueling your argument at all:
I don't know what you think is childish or egotistical about screen-shotting, I was literally looking to make you accountable for your poor attitude. I'm not an ego-driven or social media loving kind of guy, but I do believe in accountability. I'm extremely sorry for that.
If you're so jaded with the complaints of the fanbase and suggestions to improves, I suggest you step down as a mod. Otherwise, suck it up.
Again screen-shotted, and not for reasons of my own vanity as you so lovingly to implied.
If all you're doing is just waiting for AM's response to your repeated arguments, at least be gracious about it and stop attacking or "mudslinging" this man, as you've put it. I think gamer boy's comment put you extremely on edge, because nothing AM said was out of line at all (for instance, he just genuinely asked you if you played the Deo-D meta and you blew up thinking he was criticizing your meta knowledge) and definitely doesn't warrant your high-strung responses. Perhaps it's not what other people said and more along the lines that you're just easily offended and really do not want to be knocked off your high pedestal in any way, and chances are you're going to be offended by this very comment as well.
You gotta realize that retest suggestions are being brought up from time to time by plenty of other people other than yourself, so these kind of posts are usually going to taken with a grain of salt. While your posts are relatively informed, the notion of retesting these proven-to-be-broken threats just to curb the threat of Clefable seems...how you say, quite
selfish? Now I won't deny that Clefable isn't extremely annoying to fight against, but I'd say it hasn't progressed to a level where it made the meta 'cancerous', in comparison to the banned mons that you're suggesting to retest. Every team has their Achilles heel, and while yours is Clefable, I've seen many teams that just crumble to things like Talonflame, Manaphy, Serperior, etc. If Clefable really bothers you that much, you can make a point in employing more universal / specialised responses, such as Nidoking (recently brought up in VR)
This really isn't about Clefable nor was it ever, as I said it is the product of multiple bannings. You immediately discourage re-testing on one data point, and you also don't consider re-testing stuff together (i.e. in the mid-generational shift). However you want to shake it, the data is poor for the testing.
From the way you phrased most of your posts, especially the first one, you can't blame me if I doubt that you wouldn't begin to consider retesting the banned Pokemon if Clefable didn't present as much problems as it did for you (would you unban say, Greninja, on the notion that it helps beat down the bulky Grounds?). Meanwhile, the whole Aegislash debacle proved that distinct meta shifts in the same Generation do not necessarily facilitate retests, as results may largely be similiar; only when the new Generation rolls around would retests start to be
considered (but still not guaranteed).
I would appreciate if you respond to all these points, particularly those where a good vocabulary is necessary for an argument to be considered valid for you ("crazy" as a suitable adjective for a 140 base 252+ Atk STAB attack for a multi-ethnic multi-lingual fanbase apparently not also being suitable for discourse with the mods).
Good vocabulary won't get you anywhere if your points are weak / flawed, and in your case, "bring back broken threat to check broken threat" has always been a very shaky policy, because when would it stop? Your suggestion would initiate a precedent that anyone can bring up retest suggestions, and if your reasoning goes through, there wouldn't be a reason to reject the others, even the blatantly broken ones.
I think there's no way I can post anything that won't be deleted at this point, but good luck not seeing this as my signature on this account or subsequent accounts I choose to make if you do. If you pick apart the language that someone presents themselves with, then how can you possibly expect them to react? I'm glad also that you're so willing to give yourself the easy out - just label me "preposterous" and be done with it. I've raised several questions about several aspects of the tiering system for you to try and paint me as acting inappropriately. This isn't on me it's on you.
Dafuq? Did you not see AM's numerous reasoning regarding your queries at all? AM didn't just post "shut up you're wrong" or other one-liners like that; he expressly stated with great detail why your idea, well, isn't very good, and
you've taken the easy way out by trying to pin the blame on AM instead and resorting to derogatory comments when it seems you've nothing left to argue anymore. AM also never said you were breaking any rules with your behaviour or anything like that; he's just pointing out you were, and I ain't gonna sugarcoat this one,
acting like a spoiled brat. Realize that all your comments and 'screenshotting' are only serving to harm your standing on this forum many times more than it will even scratch AM's, and you ingraining whatever his comment will be in your sig will be a permanent highlight / reminder to all.
So yeah, cool down before you make your next post and have a nice day and whatnot.
