Lavos said: Blows my mind that this vote's being held now, during Classic AND World Cup playoffs, instead of waiting a month to avoid interfering with any official tournaments. Click to expand...

There's been a distinct lack of anything resembling a lively discussion on the subject in months - protracted polls with barely a paragraph's length of answers per person notwithstanding. I'm against the vote and I'd hoped that we'd have learned our lesson by now. Click to expand...

Lavos said: Interesting to claim that Gothitelle is worth a suspect vote but simultaneously won't affect BW OU with its removal. Click to expand...

"It's happened before" speaks nothing to the context of said occurences, and your lack of explanation suggests you may be devoid of one. Thank you for your input, and hopefully your future council members will be less trite in their interactions with the fate of a major tier at stake. Click to expand...

I understand why people may find the timing to be less than ideal, but we mentioned how it was hard to make progress and decisions due to less than ideal council conditions and how we planned to move forward with a bit of a regrouping of the BW council following this vote. In addition to this and perhaps most importantly, we surveyed the playerbase and not many individuals commented with issues on the timing either. You were included in that, Lavos. In fact, you were also in our chat and whenever you had questions, we did respond to you. To add on to this, if tournament directors wish to lock the tiers in Classic or WCOP playoffs, then they are entitled to do so, much like they did during last Grand Slam. That is their decision, however, not ours.Outside of the DPP Latias suspect, which involved bringing something back and was spanned over months with lots of players being drawn-in, this process has met or surpassed the standards for any comparable situation. I do believe that the old generation tiering process is suboptimal as a whole, but you cannot genuinely have a problem with this suspect in particular as opposed to the system as a whole. We have been entirely transparent, we have went through a discussion thread, we had a survey open to the playerbase to respond (which we used and discussed, as you saw in our chat), and we acted off of all of the information we had at our disposal. I think there have been missteps in BW tiering as an old generation before and I take responsibility for them, but this is more than justified and due. Again, if you have an issue with old gen tiering in general due to it not having enough room for prolonged discussion, then that is fine and I understand you. However, you cannot reasonably take issue with this and not a plethora of other tieirng decisions, including some that you were involved with firsthand.This really does not deserve much of a response because you're twisting words instead of actually arguing anything. However, just to clarify for the sake of even more transparency and openness, Gothitelle does have an impact on the BW OU metagame. dice is trying to say that it will not have such a groundbreaking impact as removing something like weather, Latios, Keldeo, etc. would as they are far more common, fundamental parts of the metagame whereas Gothitelle is just a niche, unhealthy trapper that enables uncompetitive strategy/gameplay, as I outlined in my prior post in the other thread. Lacking substantial usage =/= lacking the potential to be ban or vote worthy -- this is a basic part of tiering that we all understand. Usage can be a factor, but the practical implications of the pokemon in the metagame are what truly matters.I was hoping that my explanation on why I believed Gothitelle was problematic here , my explanation on the process as a whole here , my explanation on how we planned to proceed here , the playerbase's majority input on the subject here , and the in-depth explanation on the state of the council and vote here were all going to be sufficient, but I am sorry that I cannot add a sixth piece of substantial evidence to hyperlink to appease you, Lavos.