There's a difference. Think about it.
When we ask for submissions, we of course ask voters to answer two questions.
1) Characterize your involvement in the test. Did you play consistently throughout the month, or did you gain all your experience at the end of the test? Did you use the suspect avidly yourself or concentrate on observing it in battle?
2) Describe the criteria you will be using to cast your vote. For you, what aspects of a pokemon should be judged when determining its tiering between OU and Uber?
A closer look details that the first question is actually rather objective in nature and intentionally phrased to elicit quantitative responses. The section of 5Kr's post that I quoted and then responded to was entirely in response to this first question.
And no, the entire evaluation wasn't about SEXP, your exaggeration is *inaccurate* and *annoying*. The second section I quoted was my response to his answer to the second question. I addressed his submission in a linear manner, which makes perfect sense.
The first question is naturally addressed by objective data I have at my disposal, and the second is addressed by my subjective reasoning. I appreciate you trying to make it seem like I used SEXP to filter him out, but you are wrong. I somehow doubt that's "all you're going to say on the matter", though...
It's a huge hassle and Aeolus and I don't want to deal with the inevitable "backlash" (and spare me any suggestions that we post them in a private forum or whatever where we wouldn't invite public responses to our judging, or any naïve assertions that the voters wouldn't just PM us instead). Reading and evaluating hundreds of submissions fairly is an incredibly time-consuming and draining process, and it's our right to not extend that if we don't want to.
Despite this, I said I might do it for Latios submissions anonymously, but was preempted by a few overzealous voters, so I did it in that thread for the eight or nine people who posted. If anyone wants to see an idea of how I judge votes they can revisit the Latios thread you're quoting from. Aside from all that, I didn't want to give people a cookie-cutter template to follow when making submissions, I've mentioned that several times.
I've already stated that your issue should be with the nomination process, but whatever. When I say I've never rejected a submission because of SEXP, I mean 100% because of SEXP. Obviously SEXP could be used in the nomination process, but if any of the current detractors don't have a problem with this they are hypocrites.
Doug and I have beaten this to death both here and on IRC with you, I don't think it's possible for me to answer this without repeating something either he or I has already said. I will say this though. A few days ago, Hip said this:
And I stated that he used Latios 51 times and in all of his battles. I also mentioned that he posted in the Inside Scoop thread where I first posted the preliminary details of the idea of SEXP. Now, when you read the "didnt have much success at all" Hip posted in some neat attempt to highlight how easily he "qualified" just by hastily subbing in Latios, can you tell me any other legitimate reason that someone would continue to use a pokemon that wasn't bringing him or her much success? 51 times in a row?
This is the reason Doug and I are keeping the formula private. Doug and I have reason to believe that there are other ways to manipulate the formula, so Doug and I have the right to keep it private. And to be blunt: yes, I do 100% think that the only reason Hip used Latios 51-of-51 times is because he knew the preliminary details of the SEXP formula and was gaming the system.
