All those statements are my honest opinions, and I see nothing wrong with stating them, to be either agreed with or disagreed with by other forum goers. What's your point?
I so wanted to stop reading your post right here, because of how incredibly wrong and obviously misinformed you are. Why didn't you? I certainly wouldn't bother reading a post that long if I thought that about its writer. If the opinion is so off-basis, than it's not worth replying to because no one will believe it.
Where did we go over this "so many times" before? When was such a definite conclusion drawn? As far as I know, most respected battlers think Mence should at least be tested, and the majority even already feel it should be banned.
If I had a buck for every thread and post we've had about a Salamence suspect test, I could at least by myself a new macro lens for my DSLR. That's all I meant.
What about Scizor being everywhere? Bulky DD Mences are built to set up on Scizors, so I'm not sure what your point here is. Also, cool, lets make it a requirement to have Scizor on every team, so that we can have a "reliable" way of taking out Mence. As for the part I italicized, I just wasn't really sure what you were saying, so perhaps you could clarify? That sentence does not make sense.
Well, at least you came out and indirectly admitted your bias as to why you want Mence around (you need it to beat stall). I find it ironic that you would cite Mence's destructive power as one of the reasons you think it should stay OU, though, lol.
You make it sound as though sweepers get nominated to be tested every other day. We ARE being careful about this, and that's why Mence is being nominated to get tested, not being nominated to get banned. You seem to be getting the two confused a lot.
Your unfounded speculation has been noted.
You'll notice the phrase, "wouldn't surprise me," indicating that I neither know, nor claim to know if said speculation could be true or not. I'm just saying that it "wouldn't surprise me if it were true. I make no claim as to knowing or not.
K, more confirmation that you are very anti-stall, which further indicates your bias. Also more citing Scizor as the prominent method of killing Mence, which is not even a valid argument. Again, why should people need to use Scizor (a Pokemon who isn't even reliable, being complete Magnezone food) on all their teams to deal with Mence?
Fortunately for the rest of us, "what pisses ChouToshio off" isn't a criteria we consider when determining suspects.
Ugh, do I even have to respond to statements like this? -_-''
I'll give you one, that "what pisses ChouToshio off" isn't a criteria-- but that's because I'm too damn lazy to participate in the voting process, or even laddering on a regular basis. If I did though, than it would be a criteria, weighed against the criteria of John, Jack, Jill's opinion and the opinions of everyone else who made the criteria. Because if people really are biased one way or another, once they make the criteria they'll just write a paragraph that "sounds good" to the people who are counting.
In short: The whole banning process has at its heart, the goal of making a game people want to play. People's preferences are at what is at the heart of the process. Arguments that appeal to other players who would agree with me that they would hate a tar-slow meta, are totally worth talking about. If people disagree with the sentiments I have raised, then Salamence will get tested-- and that is the key point in the discrepancy between "testing" and "banning." After all, there's only so much time and energy people are willing to put into tests that they don't see the value of. As of now, looking at the top of the thread, there really aren't a lot of folks who'd see too much value in a Salamence test.
Additionally
(feel free to not read on, it's really not that worth it):
Smogon, after a whole lot of ridiculous debates we had way back, finally admitted to itself that this process is subjective, and that's why we have made a system that at its heart is based on majority rule.
There is no inherent virtue to a "balanced" metagame. We value balance only because the players think a balanced game is more fun. The "is more fun," is what gives governing the meta one way or another any real meaning.
By the same virtue, if the marjority of players so desire there is nothing wrong with building a metagame with the intent of making it faster, slower or less haxy. In the case of the later, we have done this by banning double team, OHKO moves etc. We have sleep clause because it's no fun to play a game with Scarf Brelooms on both sides sleeping whole teams.
When we make arguments here about such matter, it's not to prove anything, especially not with facts. You can't prove that "A metagame with Scizor on every team to check mence is broken," and I can't prove that "A metagame with a stall circle-jerk is stupid." Because both of these statements, and all these opinions, are completely subjective.
The real purpose of debate is simply to persuade others to our own way of thinking. You say I have revealed bias-- I say, so what? The purpose of my statements are simply to either persuade others to my own way of thinking, or to give words to people who would have the same opinion if they had words. It is their free choice as to whether they will agree with me or not-- in which case, it doesn't matter if my opinion is biased, because those devoted to a slow metagame will refuse to agree, and act on their own accord. Again, their opinion that a slow metagame is more fun than a fast one is just as subjective and biased as mine. Here's the punch line:
There's nothing wrong with that at all.
So you see, there is nothing ironic about me citing Salamence's power as to a reason to keep him around, because in my book that power lends to a what is in my eyes a fun and healthy metagame. That statement has just as much fundamental value to it as any other ultimately-opinion-based statement you could make about why pokemon x should/shouldn't be banned/tested.
As for all the paragraph writing and other stipulations concerned with voting in order to make the process "less subjective," I'm going to say that I stand 100% by my argument, and in this case, I believe that process is flawed. I actually applaud Smogon for making a voting system at all-- because that is being a whole lot more honest with ourselves than we were before this whole banning/testing fiasco started with Wob way way back. It is because of this sentiment that I really don't care too much whether the current system stays or not (it's fine fundamentally), but if you had to ask me my honest opinion, here it is:
I do think we would be being even more honest with ourselves if we just made it a free vote. After all, this game belongs just as much to [the guy with his Ninjask-Pass-To-CB-Medicham at the bottom of the ladder who can't write out a paragraph to save his life because Mexican-Spanish is his first language] as it does to the champion at the top of the ladder or any of the administrators. The testing itself can be valuable because it gives people a chance to make their opinions more informed, but ultimately it still comes down to opinions. The final voting itself should reflect this, and be honest about the fact that it is all opinion-based.
That's my honest opinion, though I will give respects to the fact that those who put real effort into advancing and administrating the game (which frankly I do not fall under) should be valued and given the respect they deserve. Respect and honor, but frankly the opinion of one player is just that, one voice amongst thousands who all take part in this game.
With this, I have laid out the entirety of my (unchangeable) opinion, regarding the metagame, forum discussion and even the suspect process. I got nothing more to say, so I won't be saying anything more. :P