----------------------------------------------
On the Viability Ranking Thread:
----------------------------------------------

There are only two reasons to bring up a nomination:

1.) You believe the Pokemon is injustly tiered for its capabilities (this includes Unranked > ??? nominations)
2.) You believe the Pokemon's viability has changed based on recent metagame changes enough to show in the tierings.

IN NEITHER SCENARIO SHOULD YOU PUT THE POKEMON'S CAPABILITIES INTO YOUR ARGUMENT. They accomplish nothing but to bulk up your post and make it sound like you know what you're talking about. In the former scenario, explain why the nominated Pokemon is mistiered, and why it should belong in your suggested tier. Do this by comparing it with the other Pokemon in those tiers; while it seems like a vague and shaky way to base your argument, it in fact invokes the reader's thoughts on the compared Pokemon, and as such make a generalization of each Pokemon in the tier into a certain Viability Ranking of its own. By comparison only, the reader "feels"  your point rather than logically understanding facts you bring up, because in all honesty, there's so much ambiguity between the different types of Pokemon in a tier that you can never make a 1:1 comparison with something.

In the latter scenario, explain what changes in the recent metagame provoked the nomination; for example, nominating a Weavile raise due to increasing popularity of Tornadus-Therian and non-Mega Alakazam. The post doesn't need to be bulky, it just needs to get its point across. Two or three sentences can be enough while still making your point.

The ONLY TIME you should argue a Pokemon's capabilities is when someone uses a counter-argument essentially questioning the Pokemon's capabilities. If that's the case, correct them. Remember, the side that's more right will have an easier time arguing the point, even if said better argument is still flawed.

POKEMON ARE RANKED BASED OFF OF THREE CATEGORIES:

1.) 1v1 scenarios against every Pokemon in OU and above B+ (some say A-, some say B)
2.) Synergy
3.) Opportunity Cost

To break it down:

1.) This is how the Pokemon fares in a 1v1 situation with other Pokemon. Simply put, the more scenarios the Pokemon comes on top, the better the Pokemon is, most of the time.

2.) This is how the Pokemon supports your team. This can be done by either luring in Pokemon it has bad matchups with to give a benificial matchup to another Pokemon in your team, luring in and beating Pokemon that another Pokemon in your team has a derogatory matchup against, or generally putting a partner Pokemon a benificial matchup, thus gaining Momentum. Synergy can be both offensive and defensive; the best synergies are both. Some Pokemon, like Diggersby, have plenty of the former category but almost no synergy, yet get ranked quite high.

3.) It doesn't matter how good a Pokemon is, if there's another Pokemon that does 90% of the things it does better, the Pokemon will be tiered low despite being quite good, since you can just use the other Pokemon in its stead. The biggest example by far are Mega Evolutions: By using one, you lose the opportunity to use any of the other Mega Evolutions, some of which might seem better. (I've seen people call this "compulsion" instead of Opportunity Cost, but it is opportunity cost in its very essence.)

//PERSONAL RANT
If I was in charge of the Viability Ranking Thread, I would factor in category 2 and remove category 3; Category 2 is essential to viability yet is almost never factored in, while Category 3 smokescreens several decent Pokemon - for example, normal Scizor got the boot to B/B- since its Mega variant did everything except the Choice Band variant better. However, Scizor still pulls off those sets effectively enough in Normal forme to justify use on serious teams.