so when do the polls on wobby dx-s & iv/event close anyway

Jumpman16 · Jun 26, 2008

i think tomorrow night is good enough

also this post can serve to outline how the votes are going to be tallied and how many people are going to do it...i think that actually editing every single post that contains a bolded vote with an italicized "valid vote" or "invalid vote" and a running chronological tally would be cool since we have to read all the posts anyway (im aware of who can and cannot edit posts)

something like:

_____

"wobb is uber because i'm gay as hell"

"invalid vote, 0-0 uber/not uber"

_____

"wobb is uber because [words that clearly detail i'm not retarded]"

"valid vote, 1-0 uber/not uber"

_____

wobb is not uber because [words that clearly detail i'm not retarded]"

"valid vote, 1-1 uber/not uber"

___

etc etc

i cant help but wonder now though whether or not the tallying of these votes the way chaos wants us to do them is going to be almost as subjective as analyzing battle logs. clearly someone with a strong wobby bias is going to be at least slightly inclined to disagree with the logic behind a wobb is not uber vote, so this thread can also serve to determine whether we want three people tallying votes independently or if that would even help

Earthworm · Jun 26, 2008

I pretty much agree with the OP 100%! If there are any votes in doubt I am sure they can be discussed briefly to reach a conclusion anyway.

(posting because Jump wants me to)

edit: Since the Deoxys-S vote is looking to be much closer than the other two votes and there may be some worth in checking the most recent statistics related to the Shoddy Battle Ladder's metagame, maybe we should leave it open until the June statistics are out. However, the other two have obvious enough results and can probably be closed sooner.

Havak · Jun 26, 2008

Yeah, I don't see any problems with counting it like that. But I'd also like to ask the same question as IPL.

Phuquoph · Jun 26, 2008

Having two or three people count the votes seems fair. One person from each side of the argument counts the votes, then we take an average. Since I haven't voted and I'm rather indifferent on Wobb's tier placement, I'll volunteer to count too if having a somewhat neutral (I'd rather not have Wobb in OU, but I don't really care if it remains there) party would help.

X-Act · Jun 26, 2008

I'm available for counting votes if someone needs me. (I'm neutral in all the three votes going on right now.)

Great Sage · Jun 26, 2008

I'll volunteer to help count the votes too. I voted that Wobbuffet is Uber, so I could possibly serve on that side, but I don't think that my opinion is strong enough to cloud my efforts at objectivity.

chaos · Jun 26, 2008

I was planning to count them myself because I'm a neutral party but if other neutral parties want to help out I'd be glad.

Let's wait until this week is over (Saturday 12:00 polls close)

jrrrrrrr · Jun 26, 2008

How are we going to decide which reasoning is sound and which isnt? Someone could make a huge post, sound really intelligent, but wind up saying absolutely nothing that is coherent or relevant to why D-S, Wobb or Event Moves were brought up in the first place. I am especially concerned about the D-S poll because it is the only one of the three that could go either way depending on how votes are counted.

To me, saying something like "D-S has counters so it should be OU" and then getting their vote counted is absurd because that ignores every argument against D-S' unbanning and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise, someone who claims that "Wobb doesn't allow switching so it must be Uber" should not get their vote counted under the same premise. Even if it is or isn't true, it is irrelevant to why people on the other side disagree with its tier placement. Both sides can feel differently about the tier placement, but unless there is reasoning that disproves the logic of the other side, we are left with two sides with completely true arguments...in a debate where only one side can win. If anyone saw my argument with mop on irc, you would realize how frustrating this situation can be. I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough, but does anyone else see my concern with this?

I'm all for community polling, even if it means making decisions that I don't agree with. But we really need to make sure that the decisions are being made with sound reasoning behind them.

Also, I feel that having multiple people subjectively count the votes and then averaging them is an awful idea. The vote-counting committee needs to meet at the same time and objectively determine the status of each vote. I feel that the people entrusted with our votes all need to be in complete agreeance or else this vote won't be legitimate.

Taylor · Jun 26, 2008

I understand entirely where you're coming from. But, when it comes to discussions (regarding Pokemon's tier status) between a selected group of users that will gather together as one, debating whether "Penis" is uber or not, how else are we supposed to "soundly" come to a conclusion without crossing that awkward and frustrating method, other than for example, usage statistics?

Either way, I believe that all this finally concluding this weekend will be great, regardless of the outcome.

jrrrrrrr · Jun 26, 2008

Taylor said:
I understand entirely where you're coming from. But, when it comes to discussions (regarding Pokemon's tier status) between a selected group of users that will gather together as one, debating whether "Penis" is uber or not, how else are we supposed to "soundly" come to a without crossing that awkward and frustrating method, other than for example, usage statistics?

Either way, I believe that all this finally concluding this weekend will be great, regardless of the outcome.

Well, that's exactly what I'm worried about. We should be trying to avoid those awkward "Penis" situations (if I had a dollar for every time I've heard that...). I just think that making a clarification of what is and is not relevant/acceptable/countable for the vote-counters is a must. It would probably be kept under wraps until the voting closes, though, since people should voice their own opinions without trying to make it conform to a standard other than "don't post stupid shit".

The entire point of having a vote was to have the community speak up, but using a subjective vote-scoring system could undermine this unless the reasoning behind why a vote was/wasnt counted is explained by each counter. I don't feel that "valid vote" or "invalid vote" under the post is acceptable without at least a brief explanation of why it was scored the way it was. If the counters are just discarding votes while other counters are accepting them, people will feel shafted because now their vote is worth less than other votes if an averaging system is applied.

I might be looking too far into this but it struck me as an odd way to go about things. If I'm not making sense or if what I'm saying isn't true or applicable here, I want to know.

Bologo · Jun 26, 2008

jrrrrrrr said:
Well, that's exactly what I'm worried about. We should be trying to avoid those awkward "Penis" situations (if I had a dollar for every time I've heard that...). I just think that making a clarification of what is and is not relevant/acceptable/countable for the vote-counters is a must. It would probably be kept under wraps until the voting closes, though, since people should voice their own opinions without trying to make it conform to a standard other than "don't post stupid shit".

Hmm, while I do agree that there should be a clarification of what's relevant/acceptable/countable for the counters, I don't really feel that it should be kept under wraps. The reason is that people may be trying not to post stupid shit, but if they're voicing their opinions, and unknowingly doing it against one of the rules that's under wraps, when the votes are counted, they're basically going to be told that their opinion is wrong when their vote is counted even though they were just following the rules they were initially told.

Personally, I think that if their opinion doesn't sound like a bunch of crap that was formed from absolutely nothing, and if it's not a post of stupid shit, then it should be counted. After all, it's hard for people to make new arguments in these threads at this stage, since pretty much all of the good arguments have been said several times already. I agree quite a bit with your last paragraph.

I do wonder though, will certain votes not get counted because there just weren't enough words in them?

jrrrrrrr · Jun 28, 2008

Bologo said:
Hmm, while I do agree that there should be a clarification of what's relevant/acceptable/countable for the counters, I don't really feel that it should be kept under wraps. The reason is that people may be trying not to post stupid shit, but if they're voicing their opinions, and unknowingly doing it against one of the rules that's under wraps, when the votes are counted, they're basically going to be told that their opinion is wrong when their vote is counted even though they were just following the rules they were initially told.

Personally, I think that if their opinion doesn't sound like a bunch of crap that was formed from absolutely nothing, and if it's not a post of stupid shit, then it should be counted. After all, it's hard for people to make new arguments in these threads at this stage, since pretty much all of the good arguments have been said several times already. I agree quite a bit with your last paragraph.

I do wonder though, will certain votes not get counted because there just weren't enough words in them?

Maybe you're right about that part...but it still doesn't change the fact that someone who posts something like "D-S is counterable so it shouldn't be uber" is completely missing the point of the argument, even if it is true.

Their opinions wouldn't be counted as wrong, they wouldn't be counted because they are based off of faulty reasoning. These arguments are off the mark and my point is that even though they might not sound like idiocy, they contribute nothing to either side yet for some reason influence the user's vote. This should be called into question, because quite frankly it doesn't make sense for someone to vote one way while citing logic that doesn't prove them to be correct in the argument at hand. It's like saying "I voted for Bush because I think that gay marriage is a problem." Gay marriage has nothing to do with Bush or the Presidency and is completely irrelevant to the vote, you are voting because you agree with their personal beliefs even though it has nothing to do with how good of a leader they are. Saying that D-S is OU because it has counters has nothing to do with why D-S may be overcetralizing or overpowered and certainly has nothing to do with the argument, but saying that you agree that it has counters is just agreeing that it can perform in OU (which is not what the argument is about in the first place). Wow, I hope that analogy made as much sense in writing as it did in my head.

I'm just saying that there should to be some kind of group consensus between the vote counters beforehand about what is and isn't acceptable to use as reasoning.

Cathy · Jun 28, 2008

I am especially concerned about the D-S poll because it is the only one of the three that could go either way depending on how votes are counted.

Event moves can go either way if most of the pro-event move votes are not counted, which should be the case, since they fail to address a plethora of fundamental issues that I discuss in the topic.

Obviously whoever counts the votes isn't actually going to dismiss all of the pro-event move votes, but really they fail to address fundamental issues, making them invalid. Most, if not all, of the pro-event moves are of the simplistic form "event moves are in the game, so they should be allowed", which fails to address nearly all of the issues. I believe my full argument against event moves is irrefutable. (I only arrived at it part way through the topic's life, which is why I didn't post about it in the last month or so. Before then I was fairly neutral on the issue.) You can find it spread across my posts in the topic.

I'll probably be writing an essay on this later for justifying it on my own server, but of course by then it will have been too late to make the right decision here. An amusing feature of my irrefutable argument is that it would maybe allow egg events such as Tickle Wobbuffet, but not the ever-popular Wish Blissey (depending on some other factors, but at the very least Wisy Blissey cannot be allowed if we care at all about logical consistency).

Tangerine · Jun 29, 2008

Tangerine · Jun 29, 2008

There is no clear cut "definition of uber", but we are assuming that everyone each has their own definition and that they are using it. We are only rejecting them if that argument of "what an uber should be" is an absolutely retarded one.

No need to be that objective here, IMO.

Cathy · Jun 29, 2008

I think we should have started with such a definition.

But I decided it didn't matter anymore and deleted my post, but apparently you had already replied. I apologise.

Tangerine · Jun 29, 2008

X-Act · Jun 30, 2008

So when and how will the ultimate verdict be released to the public? I'd kinda like this to happen by tomorrow so that I update the OU list tomorrow (1st July) with Deoxys-S and Wobbuffet immediately in their proper place.

chaos · Jun 30, 2008

Public opinion of Wobbuffet is clear that it is thought of to be uber.
Deoxys-S is not as clear cut as Wobbuffet; I'll look over the votes. Others are encouraged to look over the votes as well.

Tangerine · Jul 1, 2008

The current count for Deoxys is 40-40, after discounting some votes and taking into account a PM I got, and one miscounted vote.

chaos · Jul 1, 2008

Yeah, that definitely needs to be looked over.

Tangerine · Jul 1, 2008

Is there any chance we can settle the Deoxys E debate by just having one big debate involving it's changes in the metagame and making the best "decision" from there from the admins (who doesn't really need to play, but just needs to follow the argument)

The argument would have to be in PR to prevent the shitstorm that went on with Stark

The reason I propose this is that I'm having trouble discounting any "for uber" votes because everyone has a weird definition of uber and there's the entire subjectivity of what people find too good - some people I found has a very little understanding of it, thinking of using Deoxys E as a sweeper or something when that wasn't the reason people wanted it gone in the first place.

The thing with Deoxys E debate now is that through the stark debate a lot of people managed to clear up their arguments so I believe settling with the debate might be the best way

This is just a suggestion, however.

X-Act · Jul 1, 2008

I tried to look into the Deoxys-S votes yesterday but I gave up after realising that it will probably be too close to call... and I suspected right.

I dunno... I don't have enough knowledge of the metagame to decide either way.

Bologo · Jul 1, 2008

Wouldn't it just be a better idea to move all of the "borderline" or "close to invalid" or "bad argument" ones that were accepted into the rejected zone? I suppose that is the easiest way out.

However, the debate does sound like an okay idea as well. But, even if we only do it in PR, everyone there has their own definition of uber as well. Not everyone in policy review (me included) posted arguments that were very clear at all, so I'm really not sure if the debate would work, since neither side had the best arguments out there. We could give it a try if people think it's a good idea though. Removing arguments with any doubt and putting them into the rejected zone is a much easier idea though.

We definitely need more than 1 counter for the DX-S thread though if we're not going to do the debate and remove votes with any doubt. I suppose at the end, just average what each counter got in their counts for "non-uber" and "uber" votes, and you're set.

Just a suggestion though, so if it sucks, then don't do it.

Jumpman16 · Jul 2, 2008

ok i spent all day tallying these votes and it took like 7-8 hours or some stupid shit like that definitely fun stuff

ipl
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265918&postcount=2 i dont like the "bane of offense argument" you restate on page 12, it sums up why i am rejecting your vote:

"To reiterate what I've said in other posts before this one, Deoxys-E's mere existence in the metagame (in my humble opinion and feel free to disagree,) poses a problem because it performs its job as revenge killer with high speed so much better than almost everything else, and makes it unfeasible to use certain combinations of these OU Pokemon, thus stifling the number of viable strategies out there."

DX-S may be uber, but honestly, you personally never give me a convincing reason, even if using over 20 posts to make a convincing argument were "fair", which it isn't. even on page 11:

"There is no risk with using Deoxys-E, therefore it is a Pokemon that is detrimental to the health of the metagame by lowering skill."

no risk when using it as a revenge killer or late game sweeper, and besides, lowering skill isn't an inherent detriment to the metagame.

Everything on page 11 really is indicative of the "close but not quite" feel of your points during your back-and-forth with aldaron

tang:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265932&postcount=3 UBER
the first half is the good argument, "forced to switch around and hope that you don't get 'outpredicted' (or in this case, it might as well be luck)" really drives the point home that speed really does kill and it's not even prediction.

obi:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265941&postcount=4 OU
On the surface, yes, his arguments don't talk about why it isn't uber. But they imply, in my opinion, that we do not yet have the information to declare it uber. When he says "Just because a Pokemon has an effect doesn't make it uber" and responds to "DX-S destroys offensive teams" with "A bad offensive team maybe", you start to see that the implication is that we just do not yet have a reason to take action on DX-S, and that it should stay where it is, which happens to be OU.

mop:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265944&postcount=5 OU
mop speaks of the phenomenon, in pokemon, that "When you are using a certain type of team, there is of course that one weakness."

jabba
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265946&postcount=6 rejected
"No longer are 100% sweeper teams, which were very popular in early dp, viable." this isnt convincing enough to stand on its own (this is like half the entire post)

train man
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1265965&postcount=10 OU
his overarching point, whether intentional or not, is that now, today, dx-s has yet to prove to be the revenge-killer of choice, which goes with my personal observation that the community was lazy in this regard.

jackal:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266006&postcount=11 UBER
accepting this because of the first three sentences that state that it's superior to scarfers (not the "replaces choice scarfers" argument i think is poor) and can hit most everything but steels for se damage. the "why my awesome team lost" stuff that follows is not a good argument, for what it's worth, as "prepared for every other threat the DP metagame could throw at me" doesn't do much when all it takes is one poke to seriously threaten your team

bologo:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266012&postcount=12 rejected
"if it gets twaved" is not a good argument since it applies to most sweepers. "I don't really see why it's so bad that it's made Choice Scarfers harder to use" starts to get at a counter-argument to a popular argument but can't stand on its own to show why dx-s is not uber. "It doesn't really seem to me that offensive teams have that bad of a time with Deoxys-S" assumes LO and recoil damage when DX-S works just fine with EB. and "I haven't really seen anyone complain about it until now in this thread" speaks more of the community's laziness towards whoring it than anything else.

zero:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266013&postcount=13 OU
you need look no further than "I pose this question, has its true potential been realized?", but even before that he lists dx-s' multiple qualities, not ignoring them in order ot state that in spite of them it hasn't reached its potential

jrrrrrrrrrrr
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266252&postcount=20 rejected
his argument echoes ipl/jabba's "kills offensive teams" argument which is poor for reasoms stated, and the rest of the post addresses bologo's rejected reasoning

darkie:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266270&postcount=21 rejected
"an environment without Deoxys-S would have slightly more variance"? to that i say "prove it". and further: "This was seen when OU dropped from 49 previously nonuber pokemon to 45 previously nonuber pokemon" how do we know this is garchomp's fault, even if usage statistics were a good way of determining whether something is uber?

calciphone:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266326&postcount=23 rejected
not nearly as fleshed out an argument as this issue deserves, "doesn't make him replace every choice scarf Pokemon out there" is more a counterargument than an argument

spaniard:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266393&postcount=26 rejected
"i never had trouble with it" is a poor argument every day of the week without a lot of detail

AA:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266404&postcount=27 rejected
When the entire argument is "Statistics and empirical evidence don't suggest he's broken" it is easy to throw out because there are other things that can be called upon to determine this

aldaron:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266521&postcount=28 OU
"I can't however say that offensive teams have really been too negatively affected though" is what sticks out to me the most, there just isn't yet evidence to that end

MS:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266699&postcount=30 OU
isn't the best argument but i think it's good enough, the "zong/cress are already everywhere" argument starts to underline that it isn't asking too much to prepare for dx-s and you should be prepared regardless

Taylor:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266719&postcount=31 OU
"if you're caught off-guard, and are unprepared - we could argue that you were simply unprepared for the Pokemon" is valid every day of the week

Mekk:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1266870&postcount=32 rejected
i cant accept this. "Not uber. I never really had trouble with it, and when I had, it could have been a lot more Pokemon such as Infernape and Azelf" could mean that you use bronzong a lot, and also begs the question "what made you unprepared for infernape and azelf" which makes it impossible to take anything convincing from one person's accounts facing one pokemon without a lot more detail

Lee:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267003&postcount=33 rejected
"incredibly difficult to stop whilst using an offensive team." the second half of that invalidates it for a reason obvious to you all by now. further, "It could also be argued that Deoxys-S is one of the reasons behind the increase in Bronzong usage (he was ranked 10 when Deoxys-E was introduced to the ladder and has since climbed to 6) as he is one of the most reliable counters."...why is this a bad thing? this speaks to MS's point about the fact that zong was already very ou

GS:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267013&postcount=34 rejected
i am pretty much going to reject any post that has under like 50 words. the very fact that more than one person has to tally these votes is indicative of the virtual impossibility that one side or the argument or the other can convincingly be argued in just two sentences.

maddog:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267501&postcount=35 rejected
"Deoxys-S's presence caused you to build a team that can stand it, and strayed you away from offensive teams that rely on resistances. Deoxys-S is something that I know from experience is unhealthy for the metagame we are trying to create" this and the whole post is a valiant effort, but where you trip up is stating that we are trying to create any kind of metagame. this is patently false. "we" (whoever you're including in this) have little control over the creation of a metagame, as it must transition slowly from one trend to another

jump:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267637&postcount=36 OU
i am only accepting my own vote because i clarify later that the curtailing of choice scarf isn't necessarily a bad thing. and because, more importantly, dx-s curbs the whoring of the top two offensive threats in the game according to weighted usage in garchomp and gengar (it actually adequately checks all of the top-10 pokes that are offensive when you include gyarados tyranitar lucario [to an extent, LO SDed ES still hurts without a Chilan Berry]), which serves to indicate that, if dx-s itself is not proving too strong for standard play (which includes all styles of play), then we can't say it's uber just because it checks one style of play.

tay:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267929&postcount=37 OU
the most convincing post i've read yet on either side. read this: "I ladder mostly with offensive teams, and I know that quite a few of the top shoddy players use offense as well. But despite the fact that Deoxys-S has been somewhat of a thorn in my side, I have been able to deal with it with my offensive teams without compromising my defensive or offensive coverage, and I have used it against offensive teams as still lost many times." i dont even have to add anything more. reread his whole post for what i feel is a convincing argument (and also isn't a trillion words)

Slice n Dice:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1267981&postcount=38 rejected
"The immediate death of offensive teams and the omnipresent usage of +speed scarfers is indeed enough reason to place Deoxys-S back in Ubers" half of this i've rejected numerous times as a valid reason and the other half isnt even true, since scarf usage has actually gone down so there's no way they can be "omnipresent", especially not +speed ones

iggy:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269232&postcount=45 UBER
while i normally would have reason to be inclined to discount personal accounts, iggy states that he climed the ladder with this pokemon and that it ripped apart some teams easily. while this may speak of people not being prepared for it and/or iggy being the best dx-s user of all time regardless, that's their fault and/or why would he want it banned if it itself (which is what he's implying) has contributed to his ladder climb? therefore there is no fair havakway to discount this vote.

havak:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269812&postcount=46 rejected
"all deoxys are uber" pretty easy to throw out

hip:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1271357&postcount=51 rejected
besides being extremely short (in the part that doesn't talk about calm mind clefable), "It's one pokemon that replaces many. I doesnt so much beat choice scarf as make it utterly redundant" is untrue because as aldaron stated, the fastest pokemon doesn't necessarily make others that serve a similar purpose obsolete. see: scarftran being a check to lucario but also being a scizor or yanmega counter (#35 and #33 in weighted usage for may, respectively)

public (like it matters) [by that i mean that making the distinction between PR and the general public doesn't matter, if you think about it it wouldn't really make sense any other way considering you guys had most of the vote and all votes were weighted equally]

urza:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274446&postcount=58 rejected
don't preface an "i never find it hard to take down" argument with "usually i just watch" if you want people to take you seriously (id be the first to tell you you dont need to play to have people respect your arguments but you sure do if you're going with one that revolves around your battle experience)

umbarsc:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274466&postcount=59 rejected
this is another example of something that could have been more convincing with more words. as it is, his argument is that "It's speed and type coverage is too ridiculous too allow in OU" but goes on to state premises that are all easily refuted on their own. for posterity:

"It's the best late-game sweeper" ok, even if that's true, before dx-s lucario or garchomp was. is that a reason to ban a pokemon from standard?
"it can nab a super-effective hit on almost everything in the game" so can a lot of stuff, including electivire. 95 base attacking stats is the reason this is even an issue, since the similarly speedy and identically equipped dx-a is obviously uber
"It revenge-kills everything because to even begin to think of outspeeding it you need a boosting nature, 90+ base speed, and a Choice Scarf." this implies you need to outspeed it to beat it which obviously isn't true
"It can very easily outspeed and destroy everything with just four moves" this is an exaggeration, dx-a can't even do this
"has no trouble running over offensive teams" refuted numeros times because "why is that a bad thing"
"beats stall with its eyes closed unless they happen to pack one or two certain Pokemon" this isn't even true, as bolog pointed out

mr goodbar:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274481&postcount=61 rejected
"I think people are right in saying that it does put a hamper on offensive teams, which imo is a bad thing" ok, when you couple this with "I counted up to this point, 14-11 in favor of OU. I'm going to go with the, for lack of a better word, minority and say it should be uber", it is nearly impossible to take this vote seriously

ulquiorra
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274485&postcount=62 rejected
too short for a "not once have I had any trouble dealing with it" argument to be convincing every day of the week

dawnbringer:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274502&postcount=64 rejected
"Being able to outspeed many neutral natured scarfers and being able to revenge kill them off easily is"...something that doesnt indicate that dx-s is uber

bentendo13
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274519&postcount=66 rejected
besides appealing to the invalid (kills scarfers) argument, this is like 25 words

rhykune:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274529&postcount=67 rejected
just not detailed enough to support the "because it does have it's fair share of counters" argument

guarion:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274543&postcount=68 OU
"I'm still kind of on the fence, but just because something forces some metagame change doesn't make it Uber" is convincing enough to keep a pokemon where it currently is

pride:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274563&postcount=69 rejected
"making many Scarfers greatly outclassed" has been addressed already and "Pokemon must go to great lengths to become useful using Choice Scarf" implies that they for some reasom have to use choice scarf again to be useful which i personally disproved with statistics (all popular scarf pokes' usage went up from december 07 to may 08 except tyranitar which stayed at #5)

ambitions:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274573&postcount=72 rejected
"When I think something should be banned to ubers I think of a Pokemon that has no counters"...but then "Lucario and Garchomp are harder to counter than this thing" and they are OU, and even you state that "Of course other things do apply" which means that there's more to it than this. no way i can accept this argument.

logann:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274587&postcount=73 rejected
too much of an appeal to "He can be countered." and "Blahh. Statistics." for me to be able to count this

kietharr:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274595&postcount=74 OU
"I believe that Deoxys S should stay in OU for the time being...I don't think he'd destroy the metagame if left in, but I don't think he's really doing it any good. I don't think that he's killing any strategy 100% on his own though" you cannot blame him since only a few people really even whored it. again, in my opinion, this close voting is due more to the community's lack of initiative than anything else

ultimifier:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274598&postcount=75 rejected
"He completely destroys frail, fast pokemon and also outspeeds and kills most scarfers" rehashes the same tired invalid argument, and so does complaining about a metagame shift as if that doesn't happen every few months anyway

captain kishimoto:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274600&postcount=76 rejected
"Deoxys-E's stats outside of his speed are sub-par" is literally not true 90 and 95 are above average, and "A lot of teams carry Spikes/Toxic Spikes/Stealth Rock and Roar/Whirlwind, which to me is the best counter for Deoxys-E" doesn't make any sense since the popular roar/ww pokes in skarmory and zapdos get murdered by dx-s. ultimately this isn't long enough anyway

gb packers ftw
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274610&postcount=77 rejected
too short to be convincing

thunderpup:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274611&postcount=78 UBER
borderline because i can't tell if the "can"s used here imply theorymon or not, but the idea is well-laid out regardless.

-cynthia-
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274613&postcount=79 rejected
besides the vote not even being bolded this is like 25 words

bender:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274614&postcount=80 rejected
"It has average stats outside speed" untrue, 90 and 95 are literally above average
"thunder wave makes it almost useless" move beats pokemon ok
"Also its fragile" not really, it's hardly more fragile than starmie, which is considered a defensive threat because of the same high speed and the same recover (and the same bolt beam too)
"Lastly almost any priority move can usually take it down" this is totally off base, only a LO +2 Extremespeed from Lucario will OHKO DX-S, ice shards wont, QA wont and certainly mach punch wont

eo ut mortis:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274622&postcount=81 OU
"Well, what of it? If Deoxys is completely counterable by a group of Pokemon, but those Pokemon cannot be integrated into a certain playing style, then perhaps it's not a good idea to use the style anymore" is all i need to hear

stormtrooper:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274652&postcount=82 rejected
too short to be convincing with the argument he took

hitit4three:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274657&postcount=83 OU
This is about a short as you can get while still being convincing. his claim that weakening you opponents sufficiently "is relatively difficult to accomplish without a great deal of skill" can be argued with, but this is his argument nonetheless, and he supports it very well

etceteraetcetera:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274682&postcount=86 rejected
"Basically, it can only rip your team apart if you've let your team get ripped apart to the point where anything that's faster or has set up to high priority sweep your team (Lucario, anyone?) will sweep you anyway" ignores both that scarf pokemon prevent virtually every pokemon besides dx-s from sweeping even after being "ripped apart" and that lucario needs at least one turn of set up to be at "high priority" and that one turn is cricual late game. this just isnt convincing enough for me to allow it.

raikoulover:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274763&postcount=91 rejected
"In Conclusion, Deoxys-E should be made Uber because he has impacted the metagame enough and was a huge damper on the diversity of STYLES of pokemon play. " appeals to the invalid "it changed the metagae" and "it killed offense' arguments

rugaji:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274770&postcount=92 rejected
"Almost any Pokemon can take on DX-S no matter the comparison of there speed." yeah right, no way i can accept a vote with this reasoning

darthmeanie:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274826&postcount=98 OU
"All of the sets Deoxys-E runs have some sort of exploitable weakness" coupled with "it is a pokemon that fills a niche that had not existed yet" echo reasoning I feel has been valid so far. Further, "he's only truly dangerous if you're not preprared, but preparing for him isn't hard to come by" is something that i would amend slightly with "is something that you should do anyway" to really get at the point, but his point is still made

scorchedsky:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274853&postcount=101 rejected
"Amazing speed is offset by terrible HP, mediocre attacking and defending stats" again, 90 and 95 are not mediocre, they are above average by definition
"A great movepool, sure, but what can it really do" be the best revenge killer in the game and the best lategame sweeper in the game
"It does not pose an extreme threat as a Choice Specs user, and it is at best a utility pokemon" this kinda proves you havent seen it used in its most effective ways

lexite:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274874&postcount=103 rejected
"You have to have too specific of a team to counter it and that makes it broken" no, you don't

blame game:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274877&postcount=104 rejected
"'5 sweepers + bulky attacker that can deal with DeoE' most likely being the 'ceiling' in terms of how offensive I can make my team does not sound appealing, I want that ceiling to be all-out offense just like it's possible to make a 100% stall-based team without resorting to a 'stall and force an opening to set up for Garchomp/T-tar/Gyarados sweep' strategy" i'm sorry, but this has been the way competitive pokemon has worked for a long time. in advance you could rarely get away with 6 CBers because skarmory pissed on most of them to the point that "5 CBers + Maggy" was actually a coined term for a team template. The same idea is behind 6 special attackers...you weren't pulling that off because Blissey would wall and incapacitate them all day, so people realized that putting duggy on teams went a long way to fixing this. "I want that ceiling to be all-out offense" is selfish...I'm pretty sure I want Espeon to be very viable in OU but that's not going to happen any time soon

further: "If you're looking to 'weaken offense,' I don't believe keeping Deoxys-S OU is the right way to do it" is brow-raising because, again, we're not actively looking to shape the metagame at all. dx-s and wobby were unbanned because of formerly unquestioned precedent, not explicitly to change the metagame at the time.

gg:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274889&postcount=105 rejected
didnt do a very convincing job and he knows it

swchill:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274919&postcount=106 rejected
"I don't want to get sidetracked by talking about non existant pokemon but can you imagine if another pokemon could 'reach the attack power of a pokemon with base 130 attack and a positive nature with 0 EVs in attack'?" i dont have to because rampardos actually exists and has 402 attack with 0 EVs in attack, not that it matters. it very much needs some speed if it wants to deal with the popular choice scarfers, which means it's not nearly as defensive as the rest of your post would have us believe

efreet:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275042&postcount=116 rejected
"usage statistic shows he's not too much used despite the fact os terribly broken" so what, that doesn't prove it's not uber
"he has a wonderful movepool but can't do anything at once" i'm guess you meant everything but besides, psychic/ice/electric/fighting hits 12 of 17 types for SE

aquilae:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275100&postcount=117 rejected
"I like many others in this thread feel that it restricts team combinations, something I would consider worthy of being sent up to Ubers" because and only because this is the reasoning you chose to use, i have to reject your vote, because Calm Blissey does the same thing for special teams. and "It basically requires packing of a defensive wall/tank able to deal with Deoxys-S on an offensive team which I believe is causing the shift from frail sweepers to bulky offense." begs the oft-repeated question "why is that a bad thing"

tentaintcool:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275103&postcount=118 rejected
not long enough to be convincing

jimbo422:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275109&postcount=119 rejected
"it's possible to take it down with proper prediction and a small counter" you don't take down the fastest pokemon in the game with prediction that easily, sorry, not when it's "frail" enough to not directly switch into a lot of pokemon. this leads me to believe you are just talking theorymon
"The only reason Deoxys-S should even come close to being uber is becuse of the Cosmic-Stall set, but even that one set isn't threatening enough to ban the whole Poke to Ubers" i honestly don't know how you can say that with any certainty when you know people aren't really using it

myst:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275165&postcount=121 rejected
i actually agree with you, but because not many people seem to have taken advantage of this remarkably effective way of winning with dx-s, we don't really have the evidence to support and uber claim yet. again, "blame the community"

maroon3d:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275178&postcount=122 rejected
there's like 30 words here and you begin your argument with "Usage show..."

arash:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275187&postcount=123 OU
the argument begins with a valid "concerning deoxys speed form, i think people are having trouble with it now because they haven't yet built their teams with deoxys in mind" that harkens back to the idea of metagame trends. the rest of the post uses theorymon: "boosted quick attack clones, sucker punch, pursuit on something that doesn't die in one hit from its attacks" that i feel doesn't detract from his actual hypothesis because "people are having trouble with it now" which means that the ways it can be handled effectively are not yet widely known and therefore we have to use theorymon until concrete methods are realized

lyfsaho:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275200&postcount=126 OU
"This is, however, no reason at all to complain, since we do want a balanced metagame and not one full of scarfed hitters to begin with" echoes previously stated valid reasoning

metal force:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275278&postcount=127 rejected
not really long and detailed enough to be convincing

ancien régime:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275337&postcount=128 rejected
"Here's my overall point - if the existence of one pokemon suddenly makes a team that was originally very viable against the other threats in the game unviable, is the problem the team or the one pokemon? I'd say it's that one pokemon." and i'd say it's the team. and consider the alternative...do you honestly think your team is supposed to stay fantastic through many, many metagame shifts? i remind you again of chaos/skarm's stall teams of 2004 and what boah did to them

wayff:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275364&postcount=130 rejected
"If you had a very solid team from the past, you probaly now have a Deoxys-e weakness" that's nice, make a better team

kanak0:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275464&postcount=132 UBER
"It's "predictable" set is nearly impossible to counter late game and its not even limited to that set" i agree, good outlining of strategy and great post in general

johnzaloog:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275546&postcount=135 rejected
"but only his speed is truely massive, whilst the others are decent" again, this doesn't really prove he's not uber
"He was only ever an über due to the fact he was called Deoxys" this has never been a good argument

articanus:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275559&postcount=136 rejected
"something that is impossible to revenge kill and makes certain team combinations impossible deserves to be uber" this is the entire post, no way.

gemerl:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275684&postcount=143 OU
"I've also used Deoxys-E for myself... and it can have serious problems. It CAN'T get by the above mentioned counters easily (Or at all in some cases), and I've only swept up poorly built teams." a fine point, recurring for a reason

miao
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275709&postcount=146 rejected
just not long enough

odinwolf:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275711&postcount=147 rejected
just not long enough

shiny crobat:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275872&postcount=155 rejected
most of the post compares it to garchomp which may be uber itself, and of the three counters mentioned, wobbuffet is now uber and "If Blissey switches in on a Special attack, it also counters it" is a bad argument every day of the week

chris is me:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275926&postcount=158 rejected
"His Speed is his only good stat, otherwise he's very, very mediocre. His Attack stats are small - he has serious problems maxing Special Attack, having enough Attack to 2HKO Blissey, and being faster than Scarfer X"

Ok, for some numbers:

Modest, 252 Spd EVs Choice Scarf Gengar's Speed: 478
Hasty, 160 Spd EVs Life Orb Deoxys-S's Speed: 479

Gengar is "arguably" the fastest Scarfer you'll see, so "Scarfer X" is covered with 160 Speed EVs.

508 total EVs - 252 SpA EVs - 160 Spd EVs = 96 Atk EVs
Hasty, 96 Atk EVs Life Orb Deoxys-S's Attack: 250

Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Life Orb Superpower on a 651HP/119Def (min/max) Blissey: 72-85%
Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Life Orb, -1 Atk Superpower on a 651HP/119Def (min/max) Blissey: 48-57%

Not even close. Even with Expert Belt:

Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Expert Belt Superpower on a 651HP/119Def (min/max) Blissey: 67-78%
Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Expert Belt, -1 Atk Superpower on a 651HP/119Def (min/max) Blissey: 44-52%

DX-S can do no more than 63.74% max to Blissey with the first SuperPower for her to have the slightest chance of always surviving the second one accounting for both the attack drop and Leftovers. The is determined by solving for x, the max percentage Blissey can take to survive, in this equation:

(100%[max HP] + 6.25%[Leftovers recovery]) - (x + 2/3[attack drop]x) = 0.01% [minimum HP Blissey can have without being dead]

This is assuming no SR, no Spikes, no Toxic Spikes, and no SandStream in he interests of fairness, even if at least one of those field hazards is very likely in play). Regardless, guaranteed survival isn't even possible with a 96 Atk EV Life Orb DX-S:

Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Life Orb Superpower on a 714HP/130Def (max/max+) Blissey: 60-71%

As for Expert Belt:

Hasty, 250 Attack Deoxys-S's Expert Belt Superpower on a 714HP/130Def (max/max+) Blissey: 55-65%

Still impossible. Even if DX-S has only 96 Atk EVs and not the "standard" 160, you have to hope for some kind of Berry or Lefties, which are the only things besides LO or EB it will hold if the user is halfway decent. On a standard 651HP/119Def Calm Blissey, the max damage is 65% from a non LO/EB DX-S SP, so Blissey needs to be Bold (it will take 60% max from a 96 Atk EV SuperPower).

tl;dr: "you can't have him beat some Scarfers and 2HKO Blissey" is flat out wrong, unless you meant to imply that pokes like Starmie, Jolteon and Aerodactyl should have beneficial speed natures and Scarves.

phizzlax:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276218&postcount=162 OU
"Even if Deoxys caused the meta-game to be entirely bulkier offense (which certainly hasn't happened yet), I maintain that it wouldn't be a bad thing, just the next step in the evolution of the metagame." bingo.

mia:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276233&postcount=163 rejected
"I believe that Deoxys Speed Form is Uber Tier on the basis that it has an undesirable impact on game play in that it severely restricts glass cannon style" yeah, maybe undesirable to you. maybe others dont like "glass cannon style" play

stall:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276262&postcount=165 rejected
"Deoxys-S is just a different quick, fragile sweeper. It holds its own niche in the metagame, but thats something to be embraced, not banned." if you had stated why you think it should be embraced i could have counted your vote...as it is, coming to that conclusion from points like "Infernape does basically the same thing, though" is invalid because DX-S is much, much faster and has a better movepool (nape wishes it had bolt OR beam, let alone both)

pimplup:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276301&postcount=167 rejected
way too short and still invalid, "doesn't have the Sweeping Capabilities of Chomp and Ape" is debatable when those two usually need to set up to sweep

kamikaen:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276554&postcount=175 rejected
"I don't like how it generally ruins offensive teams" ok, why should the community care what you personally like?
"I also like the idea of banning it because it simplifies the rules by considering Deoxys one Pokemon." yeah right, not valid
"It completely outclasses most slower Choice Scarfers" debunked a million times over

pulse:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276590&postcount=176 rejected
"Deoxys-S removes an entire playing style of sweeping offense" debunked a million times over

robertm:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277161&postcount=200 rejected
"I've used it on my team for months and I'm not seeing anything wrong with it..." is the entire argument, no way

forbidden:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277226&postcount=204: rejected
too short and "Deoxy has too much of an impact on the metagame" isn't inherently bad

animenagai:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277444&postcount=222 UBER
"its type coverage makes it pretty much impossible to stop late game" true, and the post is short and to the point while also proving he doesn't have to go to extremes like others when he says "i think that's too much to ask"

kusaninja:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277507&postcount=236 rejected
"but since he forces us to change our teams, i believe him to be uber." not a good reason, and you would have hated boah in 2004 if this is the argument you're going with

judgement:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277568&postcount=252 OU
"I have swept teams with Deoxys-E, but that was later on in the battle when the main threats were gone. When the main threats are gone, a Pokemon is able to sweep." his argument is debatable but backed up with much, much detail and even a snippet of a log to specifically prove his point. there's no way i can disallow this

evilbob:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277590&postcount=254 rejected
way too short and merely reiterates poor arguments anyway

cloud:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277615&postcount=256 OU
post is short but well-reasoned and reminds us that "preparing for deoxys is just the same as preparing for any other 'heavy hitting' pokemon"

rai:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277689&postcount=257 OU
"I do feel that this set will rise in popularity soon and will perhaps one day cause another one of these threads, but as of right now I can't call Deoxys uber, so i'm changing my vote." he is clearly speaking from experience and gets at what i feel is one of the biggest points which is the fact that the community hasn't yet whored it

freemason:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1278011&postcount=283 rejected
"However, beyond having this capacity, to hit hard it needs to be choiced in some way, shape, or form." not true, it can at least 2HKO most OU pokes with its standard set
"Sure, it can take on a lot of pokes, but it can also be crippled by t-wave as was aforementioned, I believe." much like rby tauros any halfway decent player will pretty much never let it get twaved
"Simple prediction taken into account Deoxys is beatable." you don't "predict" against a pokemon that fast that easily unless it is Life Orbed and/or the last pokemon meaning intimidate or Atk drops can hurt its sweeping chances

vincents.zydane:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1279137&postcount=294 rejected
"It works too well with a choice item" yeah no it doesn't, this is either theorymon or you've been playing/watching novice battlers

syberia:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1279742&postcount=299 OU
"A team that lacks the defensive means to deal with at least a few major threats most likely needs work, imo." echoes the valid reasoning i've been accepting. plus the fact that you waited until seeing both sides of the debate before voting is commendable

jujuomi:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1279753&postcount=300 rejected
"[I know that I shouldn't compare its viablity while including chance, but this game is mostly luck after you've got your numbers)" yeah that's almost enough for me to discount the vote in and of itself, competitive pokemon isn't mostly luck in the long run and we're actually trying to keep it that way. this and "can't do any damage without a choice item" make it hard for me to accept the vote

DDyarados
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280060&postcount=305 rejected
"From my experience, the sweeper deoxys is easily countered by anything that can wall on both sides on the spectrum, and doesn't need evs for both sp. def AND def, or vice versa. The perfect example imo, is Cresselia." if this is your argument, you should probably be able to come up with more than one pokemon. if you can't, even if you'd say it's just "From my experience", then maybe it is actually uber

husk:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280180&postcount=309 rejected
i hate having to do this to someone who obviously plays as much as you do but I can't count this vote, it's way too short

the artic one:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280288&postcount=319 OU
"Since there are a reasonable amount of pokemon that can fill the role of the DE counter without being dead weight in the event that the opponent doesn't have a DE, I see no reason why an offensive team shouldn't be encouraged to pack one of them to be more competitave." the first half of the post is fantastically well-reasoned

lord alchemy:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280307&postcount=320 rejected
"Why? Because of how it makes 90% of Choice Scarfers obsolete." bad reason for reasons stated

sunday
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280425&postcount=321 rejected
"Most of the reasons have been stated and I don't really want to re-hash anything" cool way to validate our opening this to the public

tvboycanti:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280529&postcount=322: OU
"Sweeper Deoxys relies on quad weaknesses and porcelain monkeys to get kills, and in my opinion this serves to decentralize the metagame away from the top tier OU pokemon(a group which consists of 6 or 8 pokemon), as people who exclusively use these pokemon will be and should be punished when facing Deoxys." this convinced me at the end, very well-stated

johnxkid:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1280664&postcount=325 rejected
not long enough at all

xxbluecookiesxx:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1281358&postcount=354 OU
"the player is executing his strategy of getting rid of Deoxys' counters and then sweeping with him. He should win in that case. It's no different than me executing my strategy of fooling Gliscor with my Ice Beam Tyranitar so I can set up a Lucario sweep. If I manage to do that, I executed my strategy first and I deserve to win." well stated and reminds us of the point of team building and competitive pokemon

twist of fate:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1281607&postcount=358 rejected
"Comparing Deoxys-E to Wobbuffet in my opinion is relevant to the point I am about to make." if we hadnt banned wobby your point may have been valid

and done. the tally:

uber-OU

6-25

yes, you read that right. i rejected over two-thirds of the "votes", 71 to be precise. if you're shocked by that, read my reasoning. at least two dozen would-be "uber" posts cited the "obsolescence of choice scarf", which is patently false, or were just too short. anyway i anticipate that pretty much everyone whose vote i rejected will want to ask me why, as i sure would if my vote were rejected. to that, i will first say that i have opposed the bold voting process from the start, and this is one of the major reasons why. while quicker than trying to get at the answer through more objective means, this is totally subjective. second, you don't get to argue with me about this, sorry. i would have rejected my own vote if i hadn't used my next two posts to clarify why i felt it isn't ou, so none of you get to question me as though i haven't been as objective and fair as possible with all the votes.

and i'll just throw this out there: if any of you even begin think that the number of votes i rejected reflects more on me than on the votes, "surprise!" many of the voters did not do a very good job of arguing their cases, which is, you know, literally the only way a bold vote can be successful. we certainly didn't open this up to the public for 20-word "votes" a 12-year-old with a week of pokemon experience could have typed up...a few of you who even posted in this thread have previously had the gall to question the methods by which Policy Review members are chosen but then posted 2- or 3–sentence "votes"? give me a break

so when do the polls on wobby dx-s & iv/event close anyway

np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)

I'm the Best. You're a Towel.

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock

Banned deucer.

Tournament Banned

wubwubwub

i am alien

wubwubwub

Have fun with birds and bees.

wubwubwub

Banned deucer.

Where the Lights Are

Where the Lights Are

Banned deucer.

Where the Lights Are

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock

Tournament Banned

Where the Lights Are

Tournament Banned

Where the Lights Are

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock

Have fun with birds and bees.

np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)