Regarding the S rank discussion, since I did see it mentioned in the OU room a couple of days ago:
First off, even this thread is very unclear about what a rank is. We know inherently what something ABOVE S rank is (Example, Aegislash, or prior gens' ttar) but the defining borders between tiers are legitimately only comparable by related mons. This leads that obviously the most difficult to describe is S rank because there are the fewest mons to compare to and often because these are the 'top dogs' of the tier, their power levels are a bit hard to compare to others. IE, Aegislash again. Currently, Clefable is this quintessential Godmon that anything compared to it just doesn't quite compare. The relative power level of clef is really really hard to compare to anything else right now because Clef is one of, if not THE, best mon in tier (as a sweeping assertion). Sableye-M just came back from a suspect test, so it too is at the very least powerful. It is also meta-defining. If anything, ZardX, which is a perpetually great mon, is the 'weakest' of the three having seen the meta set against him a little more but still stay relevant and powerful. His sheer power and great set-up move is hard to compare to anything else offensively. As a sweeper, he also used to be the best in OU. He has other really good sets in his setup wisp set and old stall set, so there is some versatility there that keeps him unpredictable (+Double mega and all).
But saying "Zard X is our low bar and you must be this tall to ride the S rank rollercoaster" is not really a good description. Could we do it historically? Probably not... Not without having perfect hindsight into WHY something was so good at the time (Azumarill, Venusaur-M, Latios, Keldeo are all past S rankers, right? Most of them sit A+, but the subtle distinctions from then and now is summed up as meta shifts). We can't exactly quantify the differences in power. Reasonably and the way this thread seems to have worked is towards the first option. This option only works if there are mons that permeate each ranking to be compared to. To have a good grasp of where one tier ends and where the next begins, we must actually have good baselines in the tops and bottoms of each tier. That simply doesn't exist in S rank.
I don't really care if we lower the bar, however the current itteration of what exactly an S rank mon has needs a better description. While how that is solved is at the end of the day up to the runners of the thread, it is important for any continuing discussion as the last pages on Torn-T/Latios have shown. Lacking any structure, the ambiguity would persist and guess what, you'll never have a clear and defined 'S rank mon' unless it is completely above and beyond our expectations for what should exist in said category.
As of now, the most spelled out strategy IS to lower the bar. There are more intensive options such as describing the description of an S rank mon not in terms of 'best' or subjective-ridden 'outstanding' nonsensical lexical bullshit but rather actually giving an example of what is expected: "An S rank utility mon can be expected to have a statistical probability of x% to perform the utility duties presented to it in situations where it is given a neutral match-up on the field. It is expected to handle x% of it's own counters and can also be expected to take on x% of threats that it will commonly face." This is the hard and fast only way you will develop a true gateway to a tier. You might say this is an unfair way to categorize a tier but at the end of the day we are playing a numbers game.
Or we could brush it off as unimportant. Personally, this option is ridiculous as any relevant discussion only exists between set parameters understood by both parties but hey, I'm sure someone will think it's a fine idea.