I recall it being brought up once, and I gave reasons why it should be after typing. Nothing after that was brought up, so it can only be assumed that there were no objections. You can't expect something to taken seriously if you can't, or won't, defend it with reasons. It has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with no one debating in favor of doing it before typing in the process thread, for the weeks it was up.every time someone said anything about it the idea was shunned down because the whole committe are bias towards just having new pokemon, instead of you know thinking what the whole community want or atleast giving them the option.
Yet, the only posts mentioning it are these:Also nearly 43% of people voted they wanted a new evo last time so it is hardly like its just a few people.
1) Where would the "New pokemon or evolution of an existing pokemon" discussion be? Is it possible and/or wise to place it in among main/secondary typing discussions?
Also is it an evo should be the first poll.
I think the idea of running two CAP's at the same time isn't something that was wanted. I seem to recall it being brought up before, but cannot remember when or where.I think there is enough people wanting a new evo that you could run a new evo creation alongside the new pokemon ones, then the people who are put off by how limiting its supposed to be don't have to vote.
Personally, I'd vote for Fire regardless.There is no logical reason for voting for type first because peoples votes would hugely differ if they knew it was gonna be a new evo or not.
I think the main thing that should be added is a potential way to severely damage Heatran, arguably the best counter to Fire-types, sans Infernape, Blaziken and Magmortar.
How is voting for type first defeat the purpose of a new poke/evo poll per say? Is having the option of voting for a evolution in the beginning that important to you?I'm not gonna make a fuss but it just doesn't seem logical. Right now it seems everyone is voting like they want a new poke which is fine, but kind of defeat the purpose of a following poll
I could never imaged a fire type being a good defensive creature despite it's resistances but then I blame most of existing fire types for this bias outlook.or one that can use its resistances to its full extent (Fire does resist a whole slew of types). But that's for another poll.
I could never imaged a fire type being a good defensive creature despite it's resistances but then I blame most of existing fire types for this bias outlook.