post a discussion thread for every suspect.

[Maris]

This little suggestion came to me during the suspect nominations. and i havnt got a clue why I didnt post this before

very simply have some person post a new thread that dicusses a pokemon that is a suspect for each tier(that has a banlist of course) that way people understand why certain pokemon were voted Uber/BL and why others were put into the tier. It would also allow people to find new ways of getting around a certain suspect to keep pokemon in the tier.

Smogon has done quite a good job at doing this but certain suspects sometimes dont get the Uber/BL discussion thread (raikou comes to mind). Another part of this would be sticking the suspect's discussion threads to allow quick references for the suspect voters.
thank you very much through read this post. I tried to keep it as short and as unreptative as possible.

 

[cim]

What's stopping you from doing this now?

 

[Veedrock]

Not a great idea.

that way people understand why certain pokemon were voted Uber/BL

From my experience, if people don't understand why a pokemon is banned, they generally won't even with an explanation. With Garchomp, reasoning upon reasoning has been laid out to people wondering about his ban, which results in rants about how 'flawed' the reasoning is, usually because of this next quote.

It would also allow people to find new ways of getting around a certain suspect to keep pokemon in the tier.

Just because a threat is "manageable" does not qualify it for the tier below it. People can deal with Rayquaza in OU, but that doesn't make it ideal to take such action. Believe it or not a pokemon is not banned because the masses are too ignorant to 'find ways of getting around it.'

Another part of this would be sticking the suspect's discussion threads to allow quick references for the suspect voters.

Most past suspect vote threads contain reasoning behind people's votes, and each individual test has had a discussion thread based around it. For the UU votes you can see a voter's reasoning in the nomination threads. However, some posts are conflicting. Why? Because there's always two sides to every coin. Few pokemon are 100% uber/BL, especially if you consider 'manageable' to be a reason for unbanning a pokemon. With this confliction, how do we fully 'understand why certain pokemon were voted Uber/BL?' There's always a minority that will disagree with whatever solid reasoning you hope to achieve, so it's a wasted effort. At some point you have to let it die, discussion only goes so far (and continuing after the test doesn't do anyone favors), and voting results are the only factual reasoning behind the decision.

In a nutshell: this information can be found pretty easily, getting around a pokemon doesn't disqualify it as a suspect, and there will never be rock solid reasoning behind a suspect's placement besides "that's how the votes went."

Also, as CIM stated, individual discussion threads are permitted. We simply don't need it for every suspect, let alone to sticky it all. If somebody doesn't understand (or rather, doesn't want to) and won't use available resources to find out, that sounds like a personal problem to me.