View difference between Paste ID: NtxDeysf and ST3VcVrz

-14:12:31 NEW CHATROOM: groupchat-disjunction-nuvr
+
-14:12:31 |J|#Disjunction
+
-14:13:29 |raw|<div class="broadcast-red"><b>Moderated chat was set to +!</b><br />Only users of rank + and higher can talk.</div>
+
-14:14:37 |J|&raseri
+
-14:15:04 |c|#Disjunction|mont said he'll be here in 2 or 3 minutes
+
-14:15:12 |c|#Disjunction|idk when holly will show up
+
-14:15:23 |c|#Disjunction|etc etc everyone johns D:
+
-14:16:23 |c|&raseri|D:
+
-14:18:28 |raw|<div class="broadcast-red"><b>Moderated chat was set to %!</b><br />Only users of rank % and higher can talk.</div>
+
-14:19:56 |J|+Montsegur
+
-14:20:02 Montsegur was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
+
-14:20:02 |N|@Montsegur|montsegur
+
-14:20:16 |c|@Montsegur|I thought we were waiting for the wood
+
-14:20:27 |c|@Montsegur|soo I thought I had till like 11:30
+
-14:20:32 |c|#Disjunction|ya let's wait until
+
-14:20:36 |c|@Montsegur|which means I could of played some sexbox
+
-14:20:37 |c|#Disjunction|at least one person shows up
+
-14:20:39 |c|&raseri|free kiyo
+
-14:20:44 |c|#Disjunction|free kiyo
+
-14:20:45 |c|@Montsegur|kiyo is a facade
+
-14:20:54 |c|@Montsegur|and overthinks things
+
-14:20:59 |c|@Montsegur|vanilluxe to S
+
-14:21:06 |c|@Montsegur|what more does this discussion need?
+
-14:21:08 |raw|<div class="broadcast-blue"><b>vanilluxe to s</b></div>
+
-14:21:19 |c|@Montsegur|raseri make me RO
+
-14:21:24 |c|@Montsegur|and yourself
+
-14:21:27 |c|&raseri|nvr
+
-14:21:28 |c|&raseri|haha
+
-14:21:34 |c|@Montsegur|..
+
-14:22:15 |c|&raseri|//roomowner - This room isn't designed for per-room moderation to be added
+
-14:22:18 |c|&raseri|i cant
+
-14:22:21 |c|@Montsegur|o
+
-14:22:30 |c|@Montsegur|make me RO in art
+
-14:22:31 |userstats|total:3|guests:0| :0|+:0|%:0|@:1|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:0
+
-14:22:31 |c|@Montsegur|imo
+
-14:22:33 |c|@Montsegur|:^)
+
-14:22:55 |c|#Disjunction|I invited waters and deej over skype
+
-14:22:59 |c|#Disjunction|idk if they'll show tho
+
-14:23:06 |c|@Montsegur|when should i Link this
+
-14:23:08 |c|@Montsegur|haha
+
-14:23:09 |c|@Montsegur|link
+
-14:23:20 |c|#Disjunction|I'll link it once we start
+
-14:23:25 |c|#Disjunction|which is when we get one more person
+
-14:23:31 |c|#Disjunction|and probably holly
+
-14:23:38 |c|#Disjunction|I think he'd be pissed if we started without him
+
-14:25:45 |c|@Montsegur|if he doesn't show up in the next 15 minutes tho
+
-14:26:20 |c|#Disjunction|if anyone doesn't show up in the next 15 minutes tho*
+
-14:27:12 |J| Realistic Waters
+
-14:27:22 |J|+Kiyo
+
-14:27:27 Kiyo was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
+
-14:27:27 |N|@Kiyo|kiyo
+
-14:27:29 |c|@Kiyo|guys im here
+
-14:27:31 Realistic Waters was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
+
-14:27:31 |N|@Realistic Waters|realisticwaters
+
-14:27:31 |c|@Kiyo|we can start
+
-14:27:33 |c|@Realistic Waters|:)
+
-14:27:34 |c|#Disjunction|thank goodness
+
-14:27:39 |c|#Disjunction|k I'm going to go and
+
-14:27:42 |c|@Kiyo|where is holly
+
-14:27:43 |c|#Disjunction|advertise to the masses
+
-14:27:47 |c|&raseri|:)
+
-14:27:49 |c|#Disjunction|he's doing something for work??
+
-14:27:51 |c|&raseri|free holly
+
-14:27:53 |c|#Disjunction|idk he should be here soon
+
-14:27:58 |c|@Kiyo|didnt he say he'd be here around now
+
-14:28:03 |c|&raseri|give him 10 mins
+
-14:28:06 |c|&raseri|imo
+
-14:28:07 |c|@Kiyo|i mean i made u niggas wait while i went to starbucks
+
-14:28:14 |c|&raseri|kuk fiyo
+
-14:28:14 |c|@Montsegur|he said he'd be here 20 minutes ago
+
-14:28:21 |c|@Kiyo|o
+
-14:28:21 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo we weren't waiting for you
+
-14:28:23 |c|@Kiyo|nvm then
+
-14:28:23 |c|&raseri|owell
+
-14:28:25 |c|@Kiyo|fuck him
+
-14:28:27 |c|&raseri|D:
+
-14:28:29 |c|@Montsegur|we were were waiting for someone relevant
+
-14:28:30 |c|&raseri|what if he pulls
+
-14:28:32 |c|&raseri|a tennisace
+
-14:28:34 |c|&raseri|ie: nupl
+
-14:28:34 |c|@Kiyo|nah start at 11:30 tho
+
-14:28:39 |c|&raseri|and quits as TL
+
-14:28:44 |c|&raseri|D:
+
-14:28:47 |c|@Montsegur|D:
+
-14:28:49 |J|+Sir Kay
+
-14:28:50 |c|@Kiyo|raseri im 90% sure i want that
+
-14:28:58 |c|@Kiyo|10% unsure tho
+
-14:29:00 |J| Pokeymon Playa
+
-14:29:01 |c|@Kiyo|D:
+
-14:29:07 |c|@Montsegur|kiyo
+
-14:29:08 |c|&raseri|we would have to
+
-14:29:09 |c|@Montsegur|lets meet up
+
-14:29:09 |c|&raseri|add a new TL
+
-14:29:10 |c|#Disjunction|wanna wait for holly, then?
+
-14:29:12 |c|@Montsegur|in portland
+
-14:29:13 |c|&raseri|ya
+
-14:29:16 |c|&raseri|lets wait 10 mins
+
-14:29:18 |c|@Kiyo|yeah dude im down
+
-14:29:19 |c|#Disjunction|ok
+
-14:29:20 |c|&raseri|and build
+
-14:29:21 |c|&raseri|some hype
+
-14:29:26 |c|&raseri|Disjunction want to meet up
+
-14:29:26 |c|@Kiyo|have to find a weekend where i dont have a meet
+
-14:29:27 |raw|<div class="broadcast-blue"><b>hype</b></div>
+
-14:29:28 |c|&raseri|in hong kong
+
-14:29:28 |c|@Montsegur|I can skip things on the weekend
+
-14:29:31 |c|#Disjunction|y
+
-14:29:34 |c|&raseri|its inconvenient
+
-14:29:36 |c|&raseri|for bothy of us
+
-14:29:37 |c|@Montsegur|so im good whenever just give me a heads up
+
-14:29:46 |J| BlazikenAltIV
+
-14:29:51 |c|@Montsegur|as long as Disjunction doesn't have to drive there
+
-14:29:52 |c|@Realistic Waters|Sir Kay lets meet up
+
-14:29:55 |c|@Realistic Waters|im only like 2000 miles away xd
+
-14:29:59 |c|&raseri|xd
+
-14:29:59 |N| Blaziken1337|blazikenaltiv
+
-14:30:08 |c|&raseri|no one lives near me
+
-14:30:09 |c|&raseri|:s
+
-14:30:20 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction if you fly there I don't think I can fix the front bumper of your plane
+
-14:30:28 |c|@Montsegur|I'm not familiar with aeronautics
+
-14:30:30 (Montsegur was demoted to Room Voice by Disjunction.)
+
-14:30:30 |N|+Montsegur|montsegur
+
-14:30:32 |c|@Kiyo|raseri where are you alberta?
+
-14:30:41 |c|@Kiyo|thats only a 200$ plane ride
+
-14:30:43 |c|&raseri|edmonton area
+
-14:30:44 Montsegur was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
+
-14:30:44 |N|@Montsegur|montsegur
+
-14:30:48 |c|@Kiyo|err
+
-14:30:50 |J| FredMercury
+
-14:30:51 |c|@Kiyo|yeah edmonton
+
-14:30:51 |c|@Montsegur|lmao
+
-14:30:53 |c|@Kiyo|thats what i meant
+
-14:31:00 |c|@Montsegur|where is alberta
+
-14:31:00 |c|&raseri|im not in edmonton
+
-14:31:01 |c|&raseri|but im near it
+
-14:31:04 |c|&raseri|north of montana
+
-14:31:05 |c|&raseri|!!
+
-14:31:05 |c|@Montsegur|in relation to vancouver
+
-14:31:06 |L| FredMercury
+
-14:31:08 |c|&raseri|east
+
-14:31:12 |c|&raseri|next province over
+
-14:31:14 |c|@Kiyo|like 150 miles east
+
-14:31:20 |c|&raseri|more than that
+
-14:31:22 |c|@Kiyo|no way.
+
-14:31:27 |c|@Montsegur|so since vancouver is in canada you can realisticly get there
+
-14:31:30 |c|@Montsegur|easily
+
-14:31:34 |c|&raseri|well maybe not
+
-14:31:35 |c|&raseri|idk
+
-14:31:36 |c|&raseri|with roads
+
-14:31:38 |c|&raseri|it would be more
+
-14:31:42 |c|&raseri|unless you go through USA
+
-14:31:42 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo I hear we can get beer in canada when we aren't 21
+
-14:31:43 |c|@Montsegur|:O
+
-14:31:49 |c|@Kiyo|ok its 700 miles
+
-14:31:57 |c|@Kiyo|so what i dont know canada
+
-14:32:02 |c|@Kiyo|but montsegur im 21 D:
+
-14:32:02 |c|@Montsegur|raseri how far to vancouver is it for you?
+
-14:32:06 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo im 22
+
-14:32:10 |c|&raseri|a long time
+
-14:32:22 |c|@Realistic Waters|free deej dy
+
-14:32:23 |J| GyRro
+
-14:32:31 |c|&raseri|12 hour drive
+
-14:32:31 |userstats|total:9|guests:0| :3|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:0
+
-14:32:34 |c|&raseri|but i dont have a car
+
-14:32:35 |c|&raseri|haha
+
-14:32:38 |c|#Disjunction|I messaged deej on skype and he hasn't responded D:
+
-14:32:43 |c|@Montsegur|13 hour drive
+
-14:32:43 |c|@Kiyo|isnt deej Pokeymon Playa
+
-14:32:46 |c|#Disjunction|half of council hasn't responded
+
-14:32:47 |c|#Disjunction|tbf
+
-14:32:48 |c|&raseri|73 hr bike ride
+
-14:32:51 |c|&raseri|to vancouvewr
+
-14:32:56 |c|@Montsegur|you dont have a car
+
-14:33:12 |c|#Disjunction|73 hours of bike riding
+
-14:33:13 |c|&raseri|1.5 hr plane ride
+
-14:33:13 |c|&raseri|but
+
-14:33:15 |c|&raseri|expensive
+
-14:33:16 |c|#Disjunction|sounds like honestly a lot of fun
+
-14:33:23 |c|@Montsegur|227$
+
-14:33:25 |c|@Montsegur|round trip
+
-14:33:27 |c|#Disjunction|assuming I can still sleep and eat
+
-14:33:33 |c|&raseri|actually not that bad
+
-14:33:37 |c|&raseri|$300 CAD
+
-14:33:38 |c|&raseri|round trip
+
-14:33:41 |c|&raseri|our dollar sucks
+
-14:33:42 |c|&raseri|rn
+
-14:33:46 |c|@Montsegur|fuck canada's money
+
-14:34:04 |c|@Montsegur|and when you go to canada and are like i only have dollars they are like pay canadian price
+
-14:34:17 |c|@Montsegur|which is like 4$ added on
+
-14:34:24 |c|&raseri|o its cheaper to fly from calgary
+
-14:34:26 |c|&raseri|use our mo9ney
+
-14:34:27 |c|&raseri|money
+
-14:34:28 |c|&raseri|fuker
+
-14:34:30 |c|&raseri|we dont want yours
+
-14:34:37 |c|@Montsegur|mine is clean
+
-14:34:43 |c|@Montsegur|from the cartel
+
-14:34:53 |c|&raseri|our maple syrup cartel runs the country
+
-14:34:54 |c|&raseri|:s
+
-14:35:03 |c|@Montsegur|in case you didn't know I cook and distribute methamphetamines
+
-14:35:08 |J| Super Sonic Bros
+
-14:35:15 |c|@Montsegur|I live in New Mexico when I dont go to college now
+
-14:35:37 |c|&raseri|!
+
-14:35:48 |L| Super Sonic Bros
+
-14:35:57 |J| Jariibo
+
-14:35:59 |c|@Kiyo|my old chemistry teacher moved to new mexico couple years back
+
-14:36:07 |c|@Kiyo|i heard he has terminal cancer now :/
+
-14:36:14 |c|&raseri|xd
+
-14:36:27 |c|@Kiyo|why is cancer funny raseri
+
-14:36:30 |c|@Kiyo|god i hate you
+
-14:36:32 |c|&raseri|cause
+
-14:36:33 |c|@Kiyo|insensitive fuck
+
-14:36:34 |c|@Montsegur|breaking bad was actually a true story about me
+
-14:36:36 |c|&raseri|im insensitive
+
-14:36:39 |c|@Montsegur|I didn't have cancer tho
+
-14:36:41 |c|&raseri|im autistic
+
-14:36:42 |c|&raseri|:s
+
-14:36:44 |c|@Montsegur|they added that in for the flare
+
-14:36:56 |c|#Disjunction|oh good thinking Kiyo
+
-14:37:05 |c|#Disjunction|advertising the discussion about the thread
+
-14:37:07 |c|@Kiyo|i never watched better call saul after ep 4
+
-14:37:07 |c|#Disjunction|in the thread itself
+
-14:37:11 |c|#Disjunction|that's next level
+
-14:37:11 |c|@Montsegur|I was going to post there
+
-14:37:12 |c|@Kiyo|is it any good?
+
-14:37:13 |c|@Montsegur|when we started
+
-14:37:17 |c|@Montsegur|yah
+
-14:37:18 |c|&raseri|i never watched episode 1
+
-14:37:21 |c|@Montsegur|better call saul is p good
+
-14:37:27 |c|@Kiyo|roomban raseri isnt working disjunction
+
-14:37:29 |c|@Kiyo|HELP
+
-14:37:42 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction voice raseri
+
-14:37:43 |c|&raseri|i cant roomban me
+
-14:37:44 |c|&raseri|either
+
-14:37:50 |c|@Montsegur|he deserves it
+
-14:37:59 |c|&raseri|come on holly
+
-14:38:00 |c|#Disjunction|I would roomban people as a joke but it's a pain to get back to these rooms so I won't D:
+
-14:38:45 |J|+Megazard
+
-14:38:47 |J| the tangy
+
-14:38:55 |N| the tangy|thetangy
+
-14:39:02 |J| fuck im high69
+
-14:39:04 |J| ElegyOfVGC
+
-14:39:06 |J| Frogeggs
+
-14:39:30 |J| Chef Rice
+
-14:39:35 |J| thelaughingbrother
+
-14:39:38 |c|@Kiyo|ok holly isn't here
+
-14:39:41 |c|@Kiyo|lets get started
+
-14:39:42 |c|&raseri|^
+
-14:39:45 |c|@Realistic Waters|^
+
-14:39:48 |c|@Montsegur|v
+
-14:39:55 |c|#Disjunction|rip
+
 14:57:03 |J| Companeros
 14:57:04 |c|&raseri|i dont like splitting it
 14:57:05 |c|&raseri|:s
 14:57:05 |c|~hollywood|but if your opponent spams offensive grass-types vullaby is a pretty high pick
 14:57:07 |c|@Montsegur|me neither
 14:57:14 |c|@Kiyo|i dont like splitting it
 14:57:15 |c|~hollywood|splitting it is a really bad idea
 14:57:20 |c|#Disjunction|how so
 14:57:25 |c|~hollywood|people will be like "ok my team needs a defensive pokemon now"
 14:57:34 |c|~hollywood|"mega audino is s rank in defensive vr so i'll put it on my team"
 14:57:44 |c|&raseri|and it makes things harder for the average user
 14:57:45 |c|~hollywood|it doesnt cater to the people who we are trying to help with the vr thread
 14:57:48 |c|&raseri|having things in different place
 14:58:00 |c|&raseri|it might be helpful for decent players
 14:58:01 |c|&raseri|but
 14:58:05 |c|@Kiyo|who are we trying to help with the vr thread
 14:58:06 |c|&raseri|those are the ppl that dont really need the VR
 14:58:08 |c|&raseri|in the first place
 14:58:17 |c|~hollywood|and defensive teams rely more on synergy than they do using "good pokemon"
 14:58:17 |c|#Disjunction|yeah ok
 14:58:23 |c|@Montsegur|raseri those decent players from other tiers use the vr rankings when making teams
 14:58:24 |L| HJAD
 14:58:26 |c|#Disjunction|we're helping people who are trying to learn the tier
 14:58:27 |c|@Kiyo|cuz by ranking shit like vullaby i dont really see you helping a new user to nu
 14:58:31 |c|@Kiyo|maybe thats just me tho
 14:58:33 |c|#Disjunction|whether they are experienced users looking in
 14:58:36 |c|#Disjunction|or new users altogether
 14:58:37 |c|@Montsegur|I've had ppl thank me for them and the links to the analyses before
 14:58:41 |c|~hollywood|ranking shit like vullaby in C- is helpful
 14:58:53 |c|~hollywood|if it wasn't ranked you might not even know it's a playable mon in the tier
 14:59:04 |c|&raseri|i mean decent at nu @ mont
 14:59:07 |c|@Kiyo|i dont understand why you're for ranking vullaby and not ranking frillish
 14:59:12 |c|~hollywood|they're both ranked
 14:59:13 |c|@Kiyo|theyre essentially on the same level
 14:59:19 |c|~hollywood|but the specifics arent important right now anyways
 14:59:19 |c|@Montsegur|C- conveys to me that in general I woulldn't use Vullaby but it has a specific niche that can fit on enough teams to be semi decent
 14:59:27 |c|@Kiyo|you just said 5 min ago frillish and relicanth shouldnt be ranked
 14:59:28 |c|@Kiyo|lol
 14:59:31 |c|~hollywood|no i didnt
 14:59:31 |c|&raseri|maybe drop vullaby to d or something
 14:59:35 |c|~hollywood|i said they were D
 14:59:39 |c|&raseri|and move muk to s
 14:59:40 |c|~hollywood|and should be judged harshly
 14:59:44 |c|~hollywood|which i still believe to be true
 14:59:55 |c|#Disjunction|ok then I guess maybe a new discussion point should be brought up
 14:59:55 |c|@Kiyo|so are we judging vullaby harshly enough
 14:59:56 |c|&raseri|i think we should just be harsh
 14:59:58 |c|&raseri|witrh everything
 15:00:00 |c|#Disjunction|Should we divide the D Ranks again?
 15:00:02 |c|@Kiyo|because i certainly dont think you are
 15:00:03 |c|~hollywood|it really does not matter right now
 15:00:04 |c|&raseri|no
 15:00:07 |c|@Kiyo|and to be completely honest
 15:00:11 |c|#Disjunction|If we're putting more emphasis on D Rank then it might help
 15:00:14 |c|&raseri|divided d ranks dont help much
 15:00:15 |c|&raseri|hm
 15:00:16 |c|&raseri|good point
 15:00:17 |c|@Kiyo|the community didnt like it when i made a rough new vr rankings
 15:00:23 |c|@Kiyo|that had extremely harsh rankings
 15:00:25 |c|~hollywood|i very well might not be but that's not the point
 15:00:27 |c|&raseri|i liked kiyo rankings
 15:00:46 |c|@Montsegur|cause you had things like 5 lvls were they were and probably at least 3 below where they should be
 15:00:49 |c|&raseri|Disjunction lets talk about rank definitions
 15:00:58 |c|@Montsegur|yah lets do that
 15:01:04 |c|&raseri|its a good point to go through
 15:01:06 |c|@Montsegur|cause I think thats one of the big problems
 15:01:07 |c|&raseri|from here
 15:01:09 |c|&raseri|i agree
 15:01:16 |c|@Montsegur|that and inflation
 15:01:18 |c|&raseri|Pokemon that have a good matchup vs a large portion of the metagame, are either quite powerful or offer great team support, and can fit on almost any team. You can't really go wrong by using these Pokemon.
 15:01:18 |c|&raseri|thats
 15:01:20 |c|@Kiyo|ok what points are we judging mons based on
 15:01:21 |c|&raseri|doubles rank 1
 15:01:25 |c|#Disjunction|the tangy: they didnt like kiyo rankings because he posted questionable things without asking anybody
 15:01:25 |c|#Disjunction|the tangy: not because they were harsh
 15:01:40 |c|@Montsegur|it was a preliminary rankings
 15:01:41 |c|&raseri|Reserved for Pokemon who can sweep or wall significant portions of the metagame with little support, and Pokemon who can support other Pokemon with very little opportunity cost ("free turns").
 15:01:42 |c|&raseri|Also the home of Pokemon who can easily perform multiple roles effectively, increasing their versatility and unpredictability. If the Pokemon in this rank have any flaws, those flaws are thoroughly mitigated by their substantial strengths.​
 15:01:47 |c|&raseri|is ours
 15:01:55 |c|@Kiyo|its not like those rankings i made were official in any way lol
 15:02:00 |c|@Kiyo|why should i have contacted others
 15:02:00 |c|@Montsegur|one option is to delete the definition altogether
 15:02:02 |c|@Kiyo|also raseri
 15:02:03 |c|~hollywood|the only real problem with ours imo are that they're too wordy
 15:02:04 |c|#Disjunction|ok yeah sorry I was looking for Kiyo ranks
 15:02:07 |c|@Montsegur|which was brought up multiple times
 15:02:14 |c|@Kiyo|can we just stop working off of current definitions altogether
 15:02:18 |c|@Kiyo|and make new ones
 15:02:21 |c|&raseri|yes
 15:02:23 |c|~hollywood|deleting the definitions altogether literally makes it just comparing apples to oranges
 15:02:28 |c|&raseri|i like
 15:02:29 |c|~hollywood|it would create more problems and solvenothing
 15:02:31 |c|#Disjunction|I would be all for making new definitions
 15:02:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :13|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:02:31 |c|&raseri|doubles definition
 15:02:35 |c|&raseri|as a starting point
 15:02:37 |c|@Kiyo|we're creating a new definition hollywood
 15:02:39 |c|&raseri|and work from there
 15:02:42 |c|@Montsegur|wait I think we might need more than just -/ /+
 15:02:42 |c|@Kiyo|not getting rid of them altogether
 15:02:42 |c|&raseri|instead of using ours
 15:02:44 |c|@Montsegur|for each letter
 15:02:48 |c|@Kiyo|i just dont want to work off of the current ones
 15:02:49 |c|~hollywood|nigga
 15:02:51 |c|&raseri|what is an s rank mon
 15:02:52 |c|&raseri|?
 15:02:55 |c|~hollywood|@Montsegur: one option is to delete the definition altogether
 15:03:06 |c|@Kiyo|im assuming he means in regards to creating a new one
 15:03:07 |c|@Montsegur|I dont agree with it, it was just brought up in the thread a bunch
 15:03:18 |c|@Kiyo|o thats retarded we're not doing that
 15:03:22 |c|@Montsegur|I think we need a new one
 15:03:25 |c|~hollywood|yea im not crediting it with you just saying that it wouldnt do anything positive
 15:03:25 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:03:31 |c|@Kiyo|we definitely need a new definition
 15:03:31 |c|&raseri|lets work on a new definition
 15:03:34 |c|@Kiyo|so what are the things
 15:03:35 |c|#Disjunction|I also mentioned deleting definitions in the paste because a lot of the time people just ignore them
 15:03:38 |c|@Kiyo|we want to judge mons based on
 15:03:48 |c|@Montsegur|before we do that real quick I think we need more than just -/ /+ for each letter
 15:03:54 |c|@Montsegur|cause its causing over inflation
 15:03:54 |c|&raseri|or
 15:03:56 |c|&raseri|we add more letters
 15:03:58 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:04:03 |c|~hollywood|or we keep it like it is
 15:04:03 |c|@Montsegur|yah we can add more letters
 15:04:05 |c|@Kiyo|we have more viable mons than every other tier
 15:04:08 |c|~hollywood|and keep in mind overinflation exists
 15:04:09 |c|@Kiyo|why shouldnt we have more ranks
 15:04:14 |c|&raseri|if we need more ranks
 15:04:16 |c|&raseri|we can add them
 15:04:17 |c|&raseri|later
 15:04:17 |c|@Kiyo|overinflation is ruining the ranks tho
 15:04:18 |c|@Kiyo|lol.
 15:04:21 |c|@Montsegur|if we add more letters it would take away the sense of over inflation
 15:04:26 |c|~hollywood|so keep that in mind when we make changes
 15:04:30 |c|&raseri|definitions first
 15:04:31 |c|~hollywood|we've done it before
 15:04:32 |c|&raseri|imo
 15:04:33 |c|#Disjunction|we have the E Rank already
 15:04:34 |c|&raseri|Realistic Waters
 15:04:35 |c|#Disjunction|why not use it
 15:04:42 |c|@Kiyo|what we've done before isnt fucking working tho
 15:04:44 |c|@Kiyo|lol
 15:04:49 |c|~hollywood|it did work for a long time
 15:04:50 |c|@Montsegur|cause E rank is for everything unranked
 15:04:54 |c|~hollywood|in XY zeb fixed the overinflation problem
 15:05:03 |c|~hollywood|but it obviously eventually came back
 15:05:05 |c|&raseri|there wasnt an overinflation problem in BW NU either
 15:05:08 |c|&raseri|afaik
 15:05:12 |c|@Montsegur|BW NU had less mons
 15:05:12 |c|&raseri|well a bit of one
 15:05:13 |c|@Kiyo|so we'll just fix it every 6 months
 15:05:15 |c|&raseri|cause i was stubborn
 15:05:17 |c|@Kiyo|why not fix the fucking root problem
 15:05:17 |c|#Disjunction|Zeb brought up a great point in the thread by saying that D Rank, currently, shows new users that some of their faves are just not great
 15:05:23 |c|&raseri|and wouldnt drop mush
 15:05:28 |c|#Disjunction|if we moved some of those mons to E that'd accomplish the same thing
 15:05:29 |L| Frogeggs
 15:05:32 |c|@Kiyo|but the mons that new players shouldnt be using
 15:05:35 |c|@Kiyo|arent all represented in D
 15:05:40 |c|#Disjunction|but it'd leave D open as a viable rank for at least remotely viable mons
 15:05:41 |c|#Disjunction|like Simipour
 15:05:44 |c|#Disjunction|which is utter trash
 15:05:46 |c|#Disjunction|but has one niche
 15:05:49 |c|&raseri|i prefer d to be for semiviable mons
 15:05:51 |c|&raseri|and e for
 15:05:52 |c|&raseri|things people use
 15:05:54 |c|&raseri|that are trash
 15:05:55 |c|#Disjunction|that makes it worth it sometimes
 15:05:58 |L| the tangy
 15:06:01 |c|@Montsegur|I think there is a stigma with D / E that they're terrible so if we add on another letter I think we could also possibly move over to different symbols or somethin
 15:06:02 |c|#Disjunction|yea that'd be the idea ras
 15:06:16 |c|&raseri|just add a random greek letter
 15:06:18 |c|~hollywood|E should absolutely be the rank for Pokemon that should not see use on any team
 15:06:20 |c|@Kiyo|there is a huge stigma with the rankings
 15:06:26 |c|@Kiyo|thats why i suggested number rankings
 15:06:31 |c|&raseri|whats an example of an
 15:06:32 |c|&raseri|e rank mon
 15:06:35 |c|@Kiyo|like it doesnt actually change anything
 15:06:41 |c|~hollywood|Shroomish
 15:06:41 |c|#Disjunction|if we move to a new ranking there would eventually just be a stigma with that
 15:06:45 |c|@Kiyo|but people have pre concieved notions that D mons are trash
 15:06:46 |c|&raseri|ya there is less stigma with number rankings
 15:06:52 |c|@Kiyo|and wont let their faves fall their
 15:06:55 |c|@Kiyo|even if they deserve it
 15:06:57 |c|~hollywood|except
 15:06:59 |c|~hollywood|it's not up to them
 15:07:03 |c|~hollywood|so they can deal with it
 15:07:14 |c|@Kiyo|its a community run thread at heart
 15:07:15 |c|&raseri|[12:56] &raseri: whats an example of an
 15:07:16 |c|&raseri|[12:56] &raseri: e rank mon
 15:07:16 |c|&raseri|that ppl use
 15:07:19 |c|&raseri|not shroomish
 15:07:33 |c|~hollywood|uh
 15:07:38 |c|#Disjunction|KINGLER
 15:07:39 |c|~hollywood|there's not much
 15:07:44 |c|&raseri|maybe armaldo
 15:07:46 |c|~hollywood|kingler probably isn't e-rank
 15:07:48 |c|&raseri|but even thast can work
 15:07:52 |c|@Montsegur|Armaldo is E
 15:07:53 |c|~hollywood|i dont think armaldo is either
 15:07:54 |c|&raseri|kingler is bad
 15:07:59 |c|&raseri|armaldo is pretty close
 15:07:59 |c|&raseri|to e
 15:08:04 |c|~hollywood|unfezant
 15:08:07 |c|&raseri|it has a small niche i guess
 15:08:09 |c|~hollywood|wobbuffet
 15:08:11 |c|@Realistic Waters|Armaldo is worse than kingler
 15:08:11 |c|@Montsegur|ok so amraldo and kingler both have things that seem like they're desirable
 15:08:11 |c|@Kiyo|ok real talk we need to stop being so fucking nice about this
 15:08:13 |c|~hollywood|wigglytuff
 15:08:18 |c|&raseri|as a spinner on rain that doesnt struggle w/ kanga
 15:08:20 |c|@Kiyo|idgaf if you CAN use armaldo and it has a very small niche
 15:08:23 |c|@Kiyo|you dont fucking use it
 15:08:26 |c|#Disjunction|see we have over inflation because it's so easy to say something isn't E
 15:08:28 |c|&raseri|army of armaldos
 15:08:28 |c|~hollywood|kiyo
 15:08:31 |c|~hollywood|this is a community run thread
 15:08:34 |c|~hollywood|respect my opinion please
 15:08:35 |c|~hollywood|=(
 15:08:37 |c|&raseri|Blaziken1337: regigigas and slaking
 15:08:41 |J| The Idealistic
 15:08:43 |c|&raseri|good e rank
 15:08:44 |c|&raseri|imo
 15:08:47 |c|@Kiyo|like we're not getting anywehere with this
 15:08:47 |c|@Realistic Waters|tru
 15:08:52 |c|@Kiyo|every time we bring up a shit mon
 15:08:53 |c|@Kiyo|someone says
 15:08:56 |c|~hollywood|>unfezant
 15:08:57 |c|~hollywood|>wobbuffet
 15:08:59 |c|@Kiyo|"well it has a small niche"
 15:09:00 |c|#Disjunction|right right ok
 15:09:00 |c|~hollywood|>wigglytuff
 15:09:07 |c|&raseri|>armaldo
 15:09:07 |c|#Disjunction|let's get to definitions
 15:09:09 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:09:13 |c|~hollywood|yes we're talking about pokemon that there is literally no reason to use
 15:09:13 |c|@Kiyo|2/3 have small niches i could argue for
 15:09:14 |c|&raseri|i still support starting with
 15:09:16 |c|@Kiyo|but i know theyre trash
 15:09:16 |c|#Disjunction|I think once we establish definitions we can address this
 15:09:17 |c|&raseri|doubles definitions
 15:09:18 |c|&raseri|and
 15:09:20 |c|@Montsegur|lets switch over to the greek numeral system and add in one more rank
 15:09:20 |c|@Kiyo|and im keeping my mouth shut
 15:09:20 |c|&raseri|working from there
 15:09:22 |c|~hollywood|i can come up with reasons to use armaldo
 15:09:26 |c|@Kiyo|defensive unfezant works
 15:09:28 |c|~hollywood|i cant come up with reasons to use unfezant
 15:09:31 |c|&raseri|i can come up with reasons to use wigglytuff
 15:09:34 |c|&raseri|but
 15:09:35 |c|~hollywood|why would you use it over something else
 15:09:36 |c|&raseri|its still ass
 15:09:36 |c|@Kiyo|wigglytuff is a solid competitive av user
 15:09:41 |c|@Kiyo|like agian
 15:09:44 |c|#Disjunction|it has great coverage
 15:09:47 |c|#Disjunction|and a unique typing
 15:09:48 |c|@Kiyo|idgaf if you can come up with reasons to use a mon
 15:09:48 |c|~hollywood|that niche isn't something that's needed for a team
 15:09:51 |c|@Kiyo|if its ass its ass
 15:09:53 |c|&raseri|ok
 15:09:56 |c|~hollywood|armaldo is a spinner that beats kangaskhan and zangoose
 15:09:56 |c|@Kiyo|and it should be reflected as such
 15:09:56 |c|&raseri|definitions
 15:09:57 |c|&raseri|pls
 15:10:05 |c|~hollywood|that's a much better niche than "av competitive pokemon"
 15:10:15 |c|@Kiyo|again what are the criteria for what we want these mons to meet
 15:10:32 |c|&raseri|idk
 15:10:33 |c|@Kiyo|1.splashability
 15:10:33 |c|@Kiyo|2.reliablility
 15:10:34 |c|@Kiyo|3.consistency
 15:10:35 |c|@Kiyo|what else
 15:10:45 |c|@Montsegur|are we adding in another letter?
 15:10:47 |c|~hollywood|power level probably
 15:10:51 |c|~hollywood|not right now mont
 15:10:52 |c|&raseri|we can discuss that later
 15:10:55 |c|&raseri|if we need it
 15:11:03 |c|@Montsegur|I think that would affect the definitions tho
 15:11:03 |c|@Kiyo|how are you definining power level
 15:11:07 |c|~hollywood|not sure
 15:11:10 |c|@Kiyo|mont we'll get ot that whn we get to it
 15:11:10 |c|~hollywood|but like
 15:11:17 |c|~hollywood|some pokemon are just clearly stronger than others
 15:11:20 |c|~hollywood|whether offensively or not
 15:11:20 |c|&raseri|like sawk
 15:11:24 |c|@Montsegur|there is pure power output
 15:11:28 |c|~hollywood|right
 15:11:35 |c|@Montsegur|but like rampardos has the highest in the game
 15:11:37 |c|@Montsegur|but its not S
 15:11:42 |c|@Kiyo|lets try to make this as objective as possible
 15:11:44 |c|~hollywood|did you listen
 15:11:45 |c|~hollywood|to what i said
 15:11:46 |c|~hollywood|lol
 15:11:48 |c|&raseri|i think those 3 are a good starting point
 15:11:50 |c|~hollywood|by stronger i dont mean
 15:11:53 |c|~hollywood|"hits harder"
 15:11:57 |c|#Disjunction|Pokedots: maybe "threat level" > power level?
 15:12:04 |c|@Kiyo|ok i like that
 15:12:08 |c|~hollywood|that's fine yes
 15:12:08 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:12:12 |c|@Kiyo|how hard a mon is to deal with offensively or defensively
 15:12:12 |c|&raseri|thats good
 15:12:14 |c|@Kiyo|is a good one
 15:12:17 |c|@Kiyo|so thats 4
 15:12:29 |c|&raseri|s rank should have
 15:12:31 |c|&raseri|most of those
 15:12:31 |userstats|total:19|guests:0| :12|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:12:38 |c|@Montsegur|at least 3 if not all 4
 15:12:40 |c|&raseri|idk if they need to be all 4
 15:12:41 |c|&raseri|but
 15:12:43 |c|&raseri|at least 3
 15:12:43 |c|&raseri|for sure
 15:12:51 |c|@Montsegur|I think we should make 5 and then have it be at least 4/5
 15:12:52 |c|@Kiyo|they have all 4 currently
 15:12:53 |c|@Kiyo|imo
 15:12:55 |c|&raseri|and they shouldnt be bad in the 4th
 15:12:56 |c|&raseri|ya rn
 15:13:00 |c|~hollywood|if there is a 5th
 15:13:00 |c|~hollywood|sure
 15:13:00 |c|&raseri|i think they all fit
 15:13:01 |c|&raseri|all 4
 15:13:04 |c|~hollywood|but we dont need to force it
 15:13:07 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 15:13:08 |c|@Kiyo|Blaziken1337:(Private to +Kiyo) what about versatility
 15:13:09 |c|@Kiyo|~hollywood: if there is a 5th
 15:13:15 |c|@Kiyo|do we want to include this
 15:13:17 |c|&raseri|versatility
 15:13:18 |c|&raseri|hmm
 15:13:20 |c|&raseri|its a nice trait
 15:13:21 |c|@Kiyo|like mesprit has 8 sets
 15:13:21 |c|&raseri|to have
 15:13:22 |J| pus shaneghoul
 15:13:23 |c|@Montsegur|versatilityis nice
 15:13:24 |c|@Kiyo|but that doenst make it great
 15:13:29 |c|&raseri|sawk doesnt have a lot of sets
 15:13:29 |c|@Montsegur|like rhydon is versatile
 15:13:30 |c|~hollywood|i dont think versatility really matters
 15:13:31 |c|~hollywood|that much
 15:13:33 |c|&raseri|but its good at everything else
 15:13:33 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:13:34 |c|~hollywood|i mean it's definitely good
 15:13:37 |c|#Disjunction|I don't think versatility should make a mon
 15:13:37 |c|~hollywood|to have
 15:13:38 |c|@Kiyo|i think we can consider
 15:13:38 |c|&raseri|versatility is a nice
 15:13:39 |c|@Kiyo|it
 15:13:40 |c|&raseri|bonus trait
 15:13:41 |c|@Kiyo|but its like
 15:13:43 |c|@Montsegur|that could be a sub trait
 15:13:43 |c|@Kiyo|a bonus
 15:13:44 |c|@Kiyo|yeah
 15:13:46 |c|~hollywood|but if a pokemon does one thing better than anything else in the tier
 15:13:47 |c|~hollywood|yea
 15:13:49 |c|@Kiyo|its like worth half a point
 15:13:51 |c|&raseri|its a cool thing to have
 15:13:54 |c|&raseri|but you dont need it
 15:14:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok so its a two parter
 15:14:08 |c|~hollywood|like i would credit mesprit with versatility but wouldnt take away from sawk for being mostly one-dimensional
 15:14:10 |J| krices
 15:14:14 |L| pus shaneghoul
 15:14:17 |c|@Montsegur|if its versatile than two of those roles need to not be overshadowed
 15:14:22 |L| krices
 15:14:31 |c|~hollywood|versatility also plays into the other traits
 15:14:42 |J| METAPHYSICAL
 15:14:58 |c|@Kiyo|like sawk has 4 roles
 15:15:01 |c|@Kiyo|you could argue that
 15:15:06 |c|@Kiyo|but if i only use 1 of them
 15:15:10 |c|@Kiyo|like 95% of the time
 15:15:11 |c|@Montsegur|also guys feel free to PM us with ideas for this like pokedots and blaziken did
 15:15:15 |c|&raseri|^
 15:15:20 |J| Steakburgers
 15:15:22 |c|@Kiyo|does the fact that it can run cs, cb, lum, etc matter
 15:15:23 |c|~hollywood|ok i
 15:15:26 |c|~hollywood|gotta run out and get more short for work
 15:15:29 |c|~hollywood|i'll be back in like 20
 15:15:29 |J| buggelz
 15:15:31 |c|&raseri|:o
 15:15:34 |c|&raseri|oki
 15:15:35 |c|@Montsegur|ok, we'll update you
 15:15:37 |c|@Montsegur|when you get back
 15:15:39 |J| FoxxyStyles
 15:15:40 |c|&raseri|lets ruin nu while hes gone
 15:16:01 |c|@Montsegur|anarchy
 15:16:07 |L| FoxxyStyles
 15:16:07 |J| Jizznado
 15:16:07 |c|&raseri|ok so
 15:16:09 |c|@Kiyo|so i like versatility being included
 15:16:10 |c|&raseri|where are we at
 15:16:10 |c|&raseri|now
 15:16:14 |c|#Disjunction|hi sorry got distracted for a sec
 15:16:18 |c|@Kiyo|but its a really low relevance to rank imo
 15:16:19 |c|&raseri|i like versatility being a bonus
 15:16:20 |c|@Montsegur|I think we have main traits and then sub traits
 15:16:22 |c|&raseri|like
 15:16:24 |c|&raseri|we dont punish
 15:16:25 |c|@Kiyo|unless the mon has like 4 great sets
 15:16:26 |c|&raseri|for not having it
 15:16:27 |c|@Kiyo|that all get usage
 15:16:28 |c|#Disjunction|we were discussing what we're looking for in Pokemon when discussing them, right?
 15:16:31 |c|#Disjunction|how can we apply those traits
 15:16:32 |c|@Kiyo|yeah no punish for not having it
 15:16:34 |c|#Disjunction|to a definition
 15:16:39 |c|@Montsegur|sub traits can help a mon get a rank but they dont directly give a mon said rank
 15:16:42 |c|@Kiyo|only reward it if the mons sets actually see use
 15:16:47 |c|&raseri|yaa
 15:16:55 |c|&raseri|idc about RP physcal aurorus
 15:16:58 |c|&raseri|that doesnt count
 15:17:08 |c|@Montsegur|physical aurorus can still tear a team a new one
 15:17:12 |c|&raseri|ya but not RP
 15:17:17 |c|#Disjunction|^
 15:17:18 |c|@Montsegur|but band / specs
 15:17:20 |c|@Kiyo|ya but its usage is like 1/100 auros
 15:17:20 |c|@Montsegur|difference
 15:17:22 |c|&raseri|ok
 15:17:23 |c|@Montsegur|is what I'm saying
 15:17:23 |c|@Kiyo|so is it that relevant
 15:17:24 |c|&raseri|so we have s rank down
 15:17:25 |c|&raseri|yn
 15:17:40 |c|@Kiyo|yeah who wants to write up definitions
 15:17:41 |c|@Montsegur|even if people don't use it I still think if its good enough it should be factored in
 15:17:43 |c|&raseri|not me
 15:17:52 |c|#Disjunction|we could make it an objective criteria
 15:17:56 |c|#Disjunction|like if a mon fulfills
 15:18:01 |c|#Disjunction|4/5 of the criteria
 15:18:01 |c|@Montsegur|my example is that rhydon in XY wasn't used whatsoever but it still held A rank cause it was good
 15:18:06 |c|#Disjunction|it can be safely placed in B
 15:18:09 |c|#Disjunction|or A
 15:18:17 |c|&raseri|1/5 should be threat level for a rank
 15:18:20 |c|@Kiyo|yeah but i rly hated the xy vr's for that reason
 15:18:24 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction I said 4/5 is good but we don't have a 5th definition
 15:18:32 |c|&raseri|meme factor.
 15:18:34 |c|#Disjunction|what were the definitions
 15:18:34 |c|&raseri|xd
 15:18:35 |c|@Montsegur|and we dont wanna force one
 15:18:45 |c|@Kiyo|splashability
 15:18:49 |c|@Kiyo|reliablity
 15:18:52 |c|@Kiyo|consistency
 15:18:59 |c|@Montsegur|fuck
 15:19:00 |c|&raseri|threat level
 15:19:02 |c|@Montsegur|I just copy and pasted
 15:19:05 |c|@Kiyo|threat level
 15:19:07 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 15:19:10 |c|@Kiyo|yeah and versatility
 15:19:13 |c|#Disjunction|what about metagame relevance
 15:19:13 |c|@Montsegur|not necessarily in that order
 15:19:18 |c|#Disjunction|like
 15:19:19 |c|&raseri|doesnt that fit into threat level
 15:19:23 |c|@Kiyo|i think metagame relevance and threat level
 15:19:24 |c|@Montsegur|yah it does
 15:19:27 |c|@Kiyo|should go hand in hand
 15:19:28 |c|#Disjunction|Uxie/Mesprit weren't good in Sneasel meta
 15:19:31 |c|@Kiyo|but realisticly
 15:19:32 |c|@Kiyo|they wont
 15:19:34 |c|@Kiyo|tbch
 15:19:36 |c|&raseri|fair
 15:19:45 |c|#Disjunction|but Rhydon is really good in this meta
 15:19:47 |c|@Montsegur|versatility was agreed that it shouldn't be a main one
 15:19:56 |c|@Montsegur|cause the majority of mons wont hit it
 15:20:02 |c|@Kiyo|yeah i kinda want to tie usage in somehow
 15:20:05 |c|@Kiyo|that isnt just usage
 15:20:10 |c|@Kiyo|so i like metagame relevance
 15:20:11 |c|&raseri|idk if i want to do that
 15:20:15 |c|#Disjunction|I don't
 15:20:17 |J| mazanya
 15:20:19 |c|@Montsegur|ladder is notorious for having things that have high usage that are ass
 15:20:20 |c|&raseri|you get really good mons
 15:20:22 |c|&raseri|people just dont use
 15:20:23 |c|@Montsegur|so thats a no from me
 15:20:47 |J| Void Chrono
 15:20:51 |c|@Kiyo|METAPHYSICAL: and saying these mons are all good / work on one specifc team
 15:20:51 |c|@Kiyo|METAPHYSICAL: doesn't mean they are viable
 15:20:57 |c|@Kiyo|yeah that falls under splashability
 15:21:04 |c|@Kiyo|yn
 15:21:10 |c|&raseri|y
 15:21:12 |c|#Disjunction|y
 15:21:13 |c|&raseri|| 42   | Kangaskhan         |  5.55033% | 11902  |  3.797% | 9477   |  3.885% |
 15:21:30 |c|@Kiyo|ok so theres not a way to objectively do it
 15:21:37 |c|@Kiyo|and less subjective shit is better
 15:21:44 |c|&raseri|i dont think we should focus on being purely objective
 15:21:51 |c|#Disjunction|agreed
 15:21:57 |c|#Disjunction|the criteria have room to be subjective
 15:22:00 |c|&raseri|having a subjective bit in the criteria
 15:22:01 |c|&raseri|is fine
 15:22:02 |c|@Kiyo|to an extent i'd prefer more objective requirements tho
 15:22:03 |c|&raseri|and even then
 15:22:06 |c|&raseri|its subjective
 15:22:13 |c|&raseri|like what defines consistent
 15:22:15 |c|&raseri|where is the line drawn
 15:22:16 |c|&raseri|etc
 15:22:17 |c|@Kiyo|like people have told me they dont think they need a normal reisst on every tema
 15:22:22 |c|&raseri|does tauros count as consistent
 15:22:24 |c|&raseri|with rock climb
 15:22:27 |c|@Kiyo|and i say have fun losing to kangaskhan and tauros
 15:22:31 |userstats|total:25|guests:0| :18|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:22:35 |c|@Kiyo|i'd say  tauros consistenly does its job
 15:22:38 |c|@Montsegur|there are mons that will hit all these things and just not be good in the meta
 15:22:40 |c|&raseri|85% of the time
 15:22:43 |c|@Montsegur|so some subjectivity is required
 15:23:01 |c|#Disjunction|Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
 15:23:07 |c|#Disjunction|all have room for subjectivity
 15:23:09 |c|@Kiyo|i just dont want the level of subjectivity
 15:23:11 |c|@Kiyo|to be like
 15:23:17 |c|@Kiyo|clefairy is C rank material
 15:23:17 |c|@Montsegur|the first 3 are more objective
 15:23:19 |c|@Kiyo|cuz its good
 15:23:20 |c|@Kiyo|haha
 15:23:23 |c|&raseri|haha
 15:23:23 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 15:23:26 |c|@Montsegur|i agree
 15:23:28 |c|@Kiyo|cuz i feel like thats waht half the posts are
 15:23:29 |c|@Kiyo|rn
 15:23:32 |c|@Montsegur|which is the issue with overrating things
 15:23:37 |c|&raseri|i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
 15:23:38 |c|#Disjunction|like you could easily say CM Clefairy has a high threat level because not every team has a check to it
 15:23:38 |c|@Montsegur|but I also dont wanna underrate things
 15:23:49 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
 15:23:49 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
 15:23:50 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
 15:23:50 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
 15:23:56 |c|@Kiyo|this is how i read 90% of the noms
 15:24:03 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction even if you don't have a check to clefairy you have a check to CM pokemon
 15:24:17 |c|@Montsegur|so good teambuilding will account for it anyways
 15:24:18 |J| bouff
 15:24:18 |c|&raseri|unless your check doesnt beat clef
 15:24:21 |c|&raseri|by chance
 15:24:29 |c|&raseri|but
 15:24:32 |c|&raseri|thats not relevant
 15:24:35 |c|#Disjunction|CM Megadino wouldn't beat CM Stored Power Clef
 15:24:40 |c|#Disjunction|but yea
 15:24:40 |c|@Kiyo|#Disjunction: Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
 15:24:42 |c|@Montsegur|what doesn't beat clefairy that doesn't beat megadino?
 15:24:49 |c|@Kiyo|ok so those are the criteria for s atm?
 15:24:52 |c|@Montsegur|*that does beat dino
 15:24:53 |c|&raseri|yes
 15:24:56 |c|&raseri|i suport that
 15:25:00 |c|@Kiyo|does anyone now how to say splashability so it doesnt sound stupid
 15:25:05 |c|#Disjunction|I think effect on metagame could be reworded
 15:25:08 |c|@Kiyo|like ability to work on a number of teams?
 15:25:09 |c|#Disjunction|but
 15:25:09 |c|&raseri|!dt magikarp
 15:25:09 |c|~|/data-pokemon Magikarp
 |raw|<font size="1"><font color=#585858>Dex#:</font> 129&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Gen:</font> 1&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Height:</font> 0.9 m&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Weight:</font> 10 kg <em>(40 BP)</em>&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Dex Colour:</font> Red&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Egg Group(s):</font> Water 2, Dragon&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Evolution:</font> Gyarados (20)</font>
 15:25:10 |c|@Montsegur|in one word?
 15:25:13 |c|#Disjunction|it's not super important
 15:25:21 |c|@Kiyo|ok i'll work on wording rn
 15:25:23 |c|@Montsegur|or can I use several
 15:25:25 |c|@Kiyo|you guys can nom shit
 15:25:33 |c|@Kiyo|that makes this diffreent
 15:25:35 |J| ShadowDragoon666
 15:25:36 |c|@Kiyo|from A
 15:25:44 |c|@Kiyo|fuck i cant speak
 15:25:53 |c|@Kiyo|make criteria for A mons based on S criteria
 15:25:56 |c|@Kiyo|while i type
 15:25:56 |c|@Kiyo|imo
 15:25:57 |L| buggelz
 15:26:00 |c|&raseri|ok
 15:26:06 |c|#Disjunction|my suggestion still stands to make subsequent ranks dependent on filling criteria
 15:26:18 |J|+King UU
 15:26:27 |c|#Disjunction|like A Rank fulfills 4/5, B rank fulfills 3/5, C rank fulfills 2/5, D rank fulfills 1/5
 15:27:10 |c|&raseri|a-rank = fulfulls the majority of the criteria as defined, but is missing in one area, or 2 areas if it defines a great teamstyle
 15:27:11 |J| grizord
 15:27:20 |c|&raseri|last bit im not sure of
 15:27:28 |c|#Disjunction|also unsure
 15:27:30 |c|&raseri|and 1 of the 5 should be
 15:27:35 |c|&raseri|threat level
 15:27:41 |c|#Disjunction|I think "great" could be reworded to "dominate"
 15:27:42 |c|&raseri|it can also fill them
 15:27:49 |c|&raseri|to a lesser degree
 15:27:49 |c|@Montsegur|but there will be some B / C / lower ranks that fill more than 3 and by that definition should be higher
 15:27:51 |c|&raseri|than s rank
 15:27:55 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:27:57 |c|&raseri|when we get lower
 15:27:59 |c|&raseri|it gets more subjective
 15:28:18 |c|#Disjunction|that's true
 15:28:20 |c|@Montsegur|I think we need to expand each one into some sub sections
 15:28:26 |c|@Montsegur|and then see if they fit from there
 15:28:28 |c|@Montsegur|for the lower ones
 15:28:46 |c|&raseri|Blaziken1337: maybe also look at in terms of how much something is outclassed
 15:28:55 |c|@Montsegur|yah thats a good one
 15:28:58 |c|#Disjunction|Kiyo wouldn't be happy about that
 15:29:00 |c|#Disjunction|but I would agree
 15:29:04 |c|@Montsegur|well
 15:29:06 |c|@Kiyo|im fine with taht
 15:29:09 |c|#Disjunction|o
 15:29:16 |c|@Montsegur|kabutops completely outclasses armaldo imo
 15:29:19 |c|@Kiyo|i realized a month ago theres no way to do this perfectly
 15:29:21 |c|@Montsegur|or for the most part
 15:29:26 |c|@Kiyo|and outclassing something is an ok enough argument
 15:29:28 |c|#Disjunction|we could come up with negative definitions
 15:29:29 |c|@Kiyo|for the sake of the thread
 15:29:32 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:29:32 |c|#Disjunction|things that hold a mon back
 15:29:34 |c|&raseri|a rank should fulfill most of the s rank criteria, but be missing something
 15:29:36 |c|@Kiyo|i like negative things
 15:29:38 |c|#Disjunction|such as being outclassed
 15:29:43 |c|&raseri|Pokedots: I don't think a clear cut 1/5 or 3/5 of the criteria would work that well, I'd just say how they do when judged by each criteria
 15:29:48 |c|@Kiyo|i think being weak against higher ranked pokemon
 15:29:49 |c|&raseri|so if we want to be
 15:29:51 |c|&raseri|objective
 15:29:51 |c|@Kiyo|should be a criteria
 15:29:54 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:29:58 |c|&raseri|1 sec
 15:29:58 |c|@Kiyo|to a certain extent
 15:30:01 |c|&raseri|im wording something
 15:30:06 |J| The Testing Wind
 15:30:07 |c|@Kiyo|https://titanpad.com/Nxc84zWqD9
 15:30:08 |L| grizord
 15:30:08 |c|#Disjunction|negative criteria can work more subjectively
 15:30:10 |J| grizord
 15:30:13 |c|@Kiyo|also tahts what i have for S rank rn
 15:30:15 |c|@Kiyo|it needs work
 15:30:31 |c|&raseri|if we want to be objective, then maybe each category should be given a rank too,
 15:30:32 |c|&raseri|like
 15:30:42 |c|@Kiyo|like threat level is more important
 15:30:45 |c|&raseri|we acn have 2 pretty consistent mons
 15:30:49 |c|&raseri|but one is a bit mnore consistent
 15:30:52 |c|@Kiyo|than variety of teams
 15:30:53 |c|&raseri|and that needs to be accounted for
 15:30:53 |c|@Kiyo|or smth
 15:31:08 |L| The Testing Wind
 15:31:17 |c|&raseri|ya i like that definition
 15:31:24 |c|&raseri|threat level is most important
 15:31:33 |c|#Disjunction|hmm
 15:31:39 |L| Luck O' the Irish
 15:31:41 |c|#Disjunction|if we wanted to completely overhaul the thread
 15:31:50 |c|#Disjunction|we could get rid of categorizing all of the mons
 15:32:00 |c|#Disjunction|and list their traits
 15:32:03 |c|#Disjunction|then rank their traits
 15:32:12 |c|&raseri|that sounds like lots of work
 15:32:18 |c|#Disjunction|like Rhydon would have S consistency
 15:32:20 |c|#Disjunction|or something
 15:32:26 |c|&raseri|in theory that works
 15:32:31 |userstats|total:27|guests:0| :19|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:32:35 |L|~hollywood
 15:32:37 |c|&raseri|if we dont take into account
 15:32:38 |c|&raseri|amount of work
 15:32:41 |c|#Disjunction|that way we can qork on a case by case basis
 15:32:43 |c|&raseri|a little blurb about the pokemon
 15:32:44 |c|@Montsegur|in theory that works but when updates roll around it will take way to much time
 15:32:46 |c|&raseri|could be helpful
 15:32:56 |c|&raseri|so people know why
 15:32:58 |c|&raseri|Rhydon is S
 15:33:00 |c|#Disjunction|and it would help alleviate the problem of mons that are subpar being unrepresented
 15:33:04 |c|@Montsegur|blurb could be helpful
 15:33:12 |c|@Kiyo|it would be nice to start ranking each mons traits
 15:33:14 |c|@Montsegur|I think the blurb could go in a second post under the actual rankings
 15:33:18 |c|@Kiyo|but i agree thats a project for another ay
 15:33:25 |c|@Montsegur|cause it would get super cluttered under each mon
 15:33:32 |c|@Montsegur|we need a to do list
 15:33:55 |c|&raseri|when are we going to rank pokemon
 15:34:07 |L| Companeros
 15:34:09 |c|@Kiyo|after B rank is done imo
 15:34:11 |c|@Montsegur|after we get the ranks defined
 15:34:18 |c|@Montsegur|ok we can do that
 15:34:24 |c|@Montsegur|and then see if we need another letter
 15:34:28 |c|@Montsegur|at that point in time
 15:35:14 |c|@Kiyo|so i've been offscreen
 15:35:18 |c|#Disjunction|so how are we handling definitions then
 15:35:21 |c|@Kiyo|what have you guys come up with for A rank definitions
 15:35:43 |c|#Disjunction|we've been discussing objectively ranking mons
 15:35:56 |c|#Disjunction|vs subjectively to a rank like we have been
 15:35:57 |L| grizord
 15:36:03 |c|#Disjunction|then we got on the topic of negative characteristics
 15:36:07 |c|#Disjunction|and didn't go anywhere with that
 15:36:23 |c|@Kiyo|ok so lets list some negative things that can be accoutned for
 15:36:30 |c|@Kiyo|>hazard weakness
 15:36:35 |c|@Kiyo|>speed
 15:36:36 |L| tv4c
 15:36:42 |c|@Kiyo|>general bulk
 15:36:43 |c|@Montsegur|passivness
 15:36:45 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:36:56 |c|&raseri|poor matchup vs relevant pokemon
 15:37:00 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:37:00 |c|#Disjunction|how much should some of these weigh against the main 5 characteristics, though
 15:37:05 |c|@Montsegur|outclassed
 15:37:08 |c|@Kiyo|lolbro: priority
 15:37:17 |c|@Kiyo|i think that can fall under a speed argument
 15:37:19 |c|@Montsegur|if we go into moves tho
 15:37:25 |c|&raseri|ya it fits with speed
 15:37:25 |c|@Montsegur|then we will have a huge list
 15:37:26 |J|~hollywood
 15:37:33 |c|@Kiyo|and passiveness falls under momentum lolbro
 15:37:47 |c|@Kiyo|err other way around but yh
 15:38:03 |c|@Montsegur|hi holly, we got threat level as the 5th one and are now making a negative list
 15:38:06 |J| Adaire
 15:38:27 |c|@Montsegur|I dont think a mon should be dinged for not having uturn tho
 15:38:31 |c|@Montsegur|or any other move for that matter
 15:38:34 |c|@Kiyo|no but a pokemon like prinplup
 15:38:35 |c|@Montsegur|~~unless its scald~~
 15:38:41 |c|#Disjunction|passiveness = momentum suck
 15:38:41 |c|@Kiyo|that literally gives  a free turn when you defog
 15:38:42 |L| Adaire
 15:38:45 |c|@Kiyo|is a momentum suck
 15:38:53 |c|@Kiyo|it forces you to switch and take a hit
 15:38:59 |c|@Kiyo|because you lost momentum
 15:39:15 |c|@Montsegur|but since it can have things like toxic and defensiveness that can be neutralized
 15:39:22 |c|@Montsegur|that also has to play into it
 15:39:22 |c|@Kiyo|to an extent yes
 15:39:30 |c|~hollywood|setup fodder is bad
 15:39:33 |c|&raseri|being a momentum sap should let you be dinged
 15:39:37 |c|#Disjunction|one problem I'm seeing with this system is if we make it too complicated, people who are joining the thread will struggle to make the appropriate noms
 15:39:39 |c|~hollywood|having u-turn helps not be setup fodder
 15:39:42 |c|@Kiyo|agree with raseri
 15:39:51 |c|~hollywood|not having u-turn doesn't make you setup fodder
 15:39:55 |c|&raseri|ya i dont want a complicated system
 15:40:02 |c|&raseri|which is why i dont want things to be
 15:40:04 |c|&raseri|to objective
 15:40:08 |c|~hollywood|garbodor isn't setup fodder for much
 15:40:09 |c|~hollywood|mantine is
 15:40:11 |c|@Kiyo|i dont think having passiveness makes it complicated
 15:40:14 |c|~hollywood|if it had u-turn it wouldn't be
 15:40:17 |c|~hollywood|but it doesn't
 15:40:22 |c|@Kiyo|like hollywood is giving good examples
 15:40:25 |c|~hollywood|so it's passive and shit that doesnt mind scald sets up on it
 15:40:32 |c|&raseri|yaa
 15:40:35 |c|~hollywood|that's not very much and mantine sucks for a number of reasons
 15:40:36 |c|@Kiyo|most of our defoggers are momentum sucks for example
 15:40:48 |c|~hollywood|but the point stands that not having u-turn isn't the reason why mantine should be ranked low
 15:40:52 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:40:54 |c|~hollywood|but it sure doesn't help
 15:41:10 |c|@Kiyo|when talking about momentum we're not specificly talking about u-turn and volt switch for the record
 15:41:16 |c|@Montsegur|I just think that adding moves as part of the negative list will make it to convoluted
 15:41:27 |c|@Montsegur|but uturn and that fall under passivness
 15:41:35 |c|@Kiyo|yeah agreed i wouldnt specifically mention any moves
 15:41:40 |c|@Kiyo|cuz like holly said
 15:41:58 |c|@Kiyo|cuz of what holly said*
 15:42:31 |c|@Montsegur|so we have a p decent negative list right
 15:42:31 |userstats|total:24|guests:0| :16|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:42:41 |c|#Disjunction|ok so for negative definitions (I'm keeping a list) we have passiveness, outclassed, hazard weakness, speed, general bulk
 15:42:44 |J| Adaire
 15:42:58 |c|@Kiyo|outclass should be at the top fo the list
 15:43:02 |c|@Kiyo|hazard weakness on low end
 15:43:09 |c|@Kiyo|speed and general bulk in between
 15:43:12 |c|@Kiyo|and passive below that
 15:43:13 |c|@Kiyo|imo
 15:43:15 |c|@Montsegur|we can arrange order later imo
 15:43:22 |c|@Montsegur|for both list
 15:43:23 |c|@Montsegur|s
 15:43:26 |c|#Disjunction|that's 5 negative characteristics
 15:43:26 |L|@Realistic Waters
 15:43:29 |c|#Disjunction|how should we compare those
 15:43:31 |c|&raseri|poor matchups
 15:43:34 |c|&raseri|needs to be on there
 15:43:37 |c|@Kiyo|o yeah
 15:43:38 |c|#Disjunction|to mons with plenty of positive characteristics
 15:43:39 |c|@Kiyo|thats a big one
 15:43:41 |c|&raseri|^
 15:43:45 |c|#Disjunction|y
 15:43:48 |c|#Disjunction|but my point stands
 15:43:54 |c|&raseri|compare them
 15:43:55 |c|&raseri|subjectively
 15:44:01 |c|@Kiyo|strengths outweigh flaws is really subjective
 15:44:04 |c|@Kiyo|but its best way to do it
 15:44:09 |c|@Montsegur|should the negative list also be for S rank?
 15:44:09 |c|@Kiyo|unless someone has another idea
 15:44:11 |c|&raseri|how much do its negatives
 15:44:12 |c|&raseri|hurt it
 15:44:17 |J| Blast Chance
 15:44:18 |c|@Kiyo|i think it should apply to s rank as well
 15:44:21 |c|~hollywood|the importance of each quality matters too
 15:44:21 |c|&raseri|compared to how much the positives help it
 15:44:23 |c|@Kiyo|like arhc and mag are sr weak
 15:44:23 |c|@Montsegur|hi blast
 15:44:24 Blast Chance was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
 15:44:24 |N|@Blast Chance|blastchance
 15:44:25 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction
 15:44:26 |c|@Montsegur|o
 15:44:27 |c|&raseri|blast
 15:44:27 |c|#Disjunction|I gottem
 15:44:28 |c|&raseri|:)
 15:44:30 |c|@Kiyo|yeah i agree with hollywood
 15:44:32 |c|@Blast Chance|helo
 15:44:36 |c|~hollywood|like
 15:44:37 |c|@Kiyo|thats why i wanted an order to it
 15:44:42 |c|@Montsegur|blast ill update you in PM
 15:44:45 |c|&raseri|we need a negative definition
 15:44:46 |c|&raseri|VR
 15:44:49 |c|@Kiyo|liek hazard weakness is a flaw but its not crippling in archeops case
 15:44:55 |c|&raseri|hazard weakness is a c rank
 15:44:55 |c|@Kiyo|so its still s rank
 15:44:56 |c|&raseri|flaw
 15:44:57 |c|&raseri|haha
 15:45:11 |c|~hollywood|it's hard to come up with
 15:45:16 |c|~hollywood|a specific example
 15:45:19 |c|~hollywood|but like
 15:45:21 |L| Adaire
 15:45:48 |J| Companeros
 15:45:48 |c|@Montsegur|hazard weaknes + no reliable recovery
 15:45:53 |c|@Montsegur|is crippling
 15:45:57 |c|@Montsegur|like CB scyther
 15:45:58 |c|~hollywood|regirock being good against normals is less important because so is rhydon and that threatens more offensively
 15:45:58 |c|&raseri|to some pokemon
 15:46:14 |c|&raseri|brb
 15:46:15 |c|~hollywood|so it's more important to compare it to rhydon in effectiveness than to look at the things it does on paper
 15:46:16 |c|@Montsegur|and regi is more passive than rhydon
 15:46:34 |c|#Disjunction|so in that case holly Rhydon's ability to outclass Regi would be more important
 15:46:58 |c|@Blast Chance|so are we talking about specific pkmn or specific ranks atm
 15:47:09 |c|@Kiyo|defining ranks
 15:47:16 |c|@Kiyo|making criteria that mons can meet
 15:47:18 |c|@Kiyo|to fit into them
 15:47:34 |c|@Montsegur|but using pokemon as examples
 15:47:43 |c|@Kiyo|yeah visualization helps
 15:47:59 |c|@Kiyo|ill brb
 15:48:01 |c|#Disjunction|I wouldn't mind comparing negative ranks with positive ones subjectively
 15:48:06 |c|~hollywood|yea i'm trying to come up with examples for everything
 15:48:09 |c|#Disjunction|but then I can easily see
 15:48:13 |c|~hollywood|we have S and E hammered out though right?
 15:48:15 |c|#Disjunction|that the ranks wouldn't change much
 15:48:26 |c|@Montsegur|[12:16] Pokedots: I think D rank should have a mention of being useful in specific matchups (tours) but aren't consistent (ladder)
 15:48:31 |c|#Disjunction|in terms of people nominating them
 15:48:33 |c|@Montsegur|kind of relevant to E
 15:48:38 |L| Void Chrono
 15:48:44 |c|~hollywood|well the extremes are the most important to define
 15:48:48 |c|~hollywood|everything else is pretty simple
 15:48:49 |c|#Disjunction|^
 15:49:00 |c|~hollywood|you can just slide down the scale from the two starting points
 15:49:07 |L| Companeros
 15:49:07 |c|#Disjunction|I think S, A, and D are most important
 15:49:08 |c|#Disjunction|right now
 15:49:11 |c|@Montsegur|I dont want to rank every NFE and PU mon that clearly shouldn't be used tho
 15:49:33 |c|#Disjunction|we could
 15:49:40 |c|#Disjunction|move things from D to E
 15:49:43 |c|#Disjunction|when we want to unrank
 15:49:48 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, nfe
 15:49:48 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pikachu, Sandslash, Nidorina, Nidorino, and 121 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
 15:49:53 |c|#Disjunction|as a kind of transition to being unranked
 15:49:56 |c|@Montsegur|that would be over 121 mons
 15:50:00 |c|~hollywood|nu nfe is all nfes not above nu
 15:50:12 |c|@Montsegur|oh i forgot pu
 15:50:16 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, pu, nfe
 15:50:16 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Butterfree, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pidgeot, Raticate, Fearow, and 257 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
 15:50:19 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 15:50:19 |c|~hollywood|!ds all, nu, nfe, !nfe
 15:50:19 |raw|<div class="infobox">A search with the parameter 'all' cannot be broadcast.</div>
 15:50:23 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, nfe, !nfe
 15:50:23 |raw|<div class="infobox">A search cannot both exclude and include a tier.</div>
 15:50:26 |c|~hollywood|cry
 15:50:28 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
 15:50:31 |c|~hollywood|i want
 15:50:36 |c|~hollywood|nfe but not in the "tier" nfe
 15:50:59 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, nfe, !pu
 15:50:59 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pikachu, Sandslash, Nidorina, Nidorino, and 121 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
 15:51:01 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, dark type, !nfe
 15:51:01 |raw|<div class="infobox">Cacturne, Liepard, Malamar, Pawniard, Shiftry, Skuntank</div>
 15:51:08 |c|@Montsegur|pawniard gets included
 15:51:12 |c|~hollywood|well it's not nfe
 15:51:13 |c|~hollywood|tho
 15:51:14 |c|~hollywood|it's lc
 15:51:16 |c|@Montsegur|o
 15:51:18 |c|~hollywood|by "nfe" definitions
 15:51:18 |c|@Montsegur|hmm
 15:51:19 |c|~hollywood|that is
 15:51:27 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, bug type, !nfe
 15:51:27 |raw|<div class="infobox">Crustle, Pinsir, Scyther, Vivillon</div>
 15:51:30 |c|~hollywood|wont exclude scyther either
 15:51:33 |c|~hollywood|because it's considered nu
 15:51:40 |c|#Disjunction|ok so can we get a summary
 15:51:41 |c|~hollywood|anyways this is mostly unimportant
 15:51:44 |c|#Disjunction|of all the changes so far?
 15:51:52 |c|@Montsegur|!ds fighting type, nu, !nfe
 15:51:52 |raw|<div class="infobox">Combusken, Gurdurr, Hariyama, Hitmonchan, Poliwrath, Primeape, Sawk</div>
 15:51:59 |c|@Montsegur|gurdurr is there
 15:52:08 |c|~hollywood|yes i just explained why
 15:52:27 |c|~hollywood|i think what it boils down to is the niche of D rank mons being important enough to include it
 15:52:31 |userstats|total:23|guests:0| :15|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 15:52:39 |c|@Montsegur|I think so
 15:52:52 |c|@Montsegur|I think that caters more to the average / slightly above average player
 15:52:54 |c|#Disjunction|that and rank definitions
 15:53:05 |c|@Montsegur|who has gotten used to the top rank mons and is starting to expiriment a bit
 15:53:59 |c|@Montsegur|should we take a 15 minute coffee break?
 15:54:09 |c|~hollywood|i just got back -_-
 15:54:10 |c|#Disjunction|I have to leave in 45
 15:54:11 |c|@Montsegur|cause kiyo and ras aren't here and blast is busy flying planes
 15:54:28 |c|@Montsegur|this might need to be a two part discussion :/
 15:54:41 |c|&raseri|im here
 15:54:44 |c|&raseri|now
 15:54:47 |c|&raseri|im tired tho
 15:54:48 |c|@Kiyo|im here now
 15:54:48 |c|&raseri|:s
 15:54:53 |c|@Kiyo|football soon tho
 15:54:56 |c|&raseri|o
 15:55:00 |c|@Kiyo|maybe wecan carry into pms?
 15:55:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok lets continue then and at least get the definitions done today
 15:55:03 |c|&raseri|ya
 15:55:07 |c|&raseri|what do we have
 15:55:08 |c|&raseri|so far
 15:55:11 |c|@Kiyo|^
 15:55:15 |c|~hollywood|is there anything else important other than definitions?
 15:55:22 |c|@Montsegur|inflation
 15:55:23 |c|~hollywood|reranking i guess but that doesnt need to be done in realtime
 15:55:29 |c|@Montsegur|and a possible new letter to adjust for that
 15:55:33 |c|#Disjunction|yeah I think if we got definitions in place we could just re-rank all of the mons
 15:55:39 |c|#Disjunction|and we'd have an accurate list
 15:55:56 |c|&raseri|dont put things in ranks higher than they deserve
 15:56:00 |c|&raseri|dont be hesitant to drop bad shit
 15:56:07 |c|@Montsegur|inflation is part of the reason why this all happened, and since we have more viable mons that need to be ranked than certain ranks seem over inflated
 15:56:13 |c|#Disjunction|yea mont is really stingy about dropping blatantly bad shit
 15:56:15 |c|#Disjunction|like Simipour
 15:56:19 |c|#Disjunction|>:(
 15:56:26 |c|@Montsegur|so unrank lapras
 15:56:27 |c|@Montsegur|got it
 15:56:30 |c|@Blast Chance|^
 15:56:31 |c|~hollywood|you know what else would help with overinflation
 15:56:39 |c|~hollywood|only doing suggested reranks
 15:56:48 |c|~hollywood|and not just throwing out the list for everyone to comment on
 15:57:05 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo suggested doing definitions down to B and then start ranking them
 15:57:12 |c|@Montsegur|and then we can see if overinflation is an issue
 15:57:17 |c|@Kiyo|i think we need to look at mons more frequently
 15:57:17 |c|@Montsegur|if it isn't great
 15:57:26 |c|@Montsegur|if it is then we can fix it when we get there
 15:57:29 |c|@Kiyo|like there are mons that havent had discussion
 15:57:31 |c|@Kiyo|since xy
 15:57:32 |c|~hollywood|i mean like i said defining b/c is less important
 15:57:35 |c|~hollywood|"less good than a rank"
 15:57:39 |c|~hollywood|"less good than b rank"
 15:57:39 |c|@Kiyo|we should re look at each section weekly
 15:57:58 |L| Blaziken1337
 15:58:01 |c|~hollywood|yea a full revamp would help with that
 15:58:01 |c|@Montsegur|I have free weekends now
 15:58:05 |c|~hollywood|we did the same in bw2
 15:58:08 |c|~hollywood|and it helped a ton
 15:58:08 |c|@Montsegur|but thats hard to do with everyones schedule
 15:58:16 |c|~hollywood|not everyone has to be there
 15:58:20 |J| LeoLancaster
 15:58:20 |c|@Montsegur|i think that biweekly is more managble
 15:58:26 |L| mazanya
 15:58:28 |c|~hollywood|when we did it in bw2, it was
 15:58:30 |c|&raseri|free viability council
 15:58:31 |c|~hollywood|me, ras, ebeast
 15:58:35 |c|~hollywood|and i think flcl for like half the time
 15:58:36 |c|@Montsegur|raseri I did that
 15:58:38 |c|@Kiyo|like even if its 3 people
 15:58:39 |c|@Montsegur|nerd keep up
 15:58:42 |c|~hollywood|i even convinced them to put stantler in D
 15:58:45 |c|@Kiyo|and we just run it by everyone else in a pm
 15:58:47 |c|&raseri|stantler was good
 15:58:48 |c|@Kiyo|i think its ok
 15:58:48 |c|~hollywood|and it stayed there for a couple months
 15:58:49 |c|~hollywood|:)
 15:58:50 |c|&raseri|it beat mola
 15:58:57 |c|~hollywood|best wallbreaker
 15:59:00 |c|&raseri|i was mainly just a tyrunt
 15:59:03 |c|&raseri|in bw viability
 15:59:09 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo the one issue with the PM is that no one replies in a timely fashion
 15:59:15 |c|@Montsegur|aside from like hollywood
 15:59:16 |c|@Kiyo|then fuck em
 15:59:18 |c|&raseri|^
 15:59:19 |c|&raseri|fuck em
 15:59:25 |c|@Montsegur|with the last viability council
 15:59:27 |c|@Kiyo|if they cant be active they dont get a say
 15:59:29 |c|&raseri|no reply = no opibion
 15:59:32 |c|#Disjunction|yea honestly the people who are on right now
 15:59:36 |c|#Disjunction|are the only people who would respond
 15:59:38 |c|#Disjunction|+finch
 15:59:40 |c|@Montsegur|or raseri saying only list the important changes
 15:59:40 |c|@Montsegur|lol
 15:59:43 |c|#Disjunction|but finch would just yell
 15:59:43 |c|#Disjunction|D:
 15:59:55 |c|@Montsegur|finch is in his rebel stage
 15:59:57 |c|@Montsegur|as a teenager
 16:00:03 |c|&raseri|so
 16:00:05 |L| ShadowDragoon666
 16:00:06 |c|&raseri|free council
 16:00:08 |c|&raseri|fuk piratepad
 16:00:11 |c|@Montsegur|I did that
 16:00:13 |c|&raseri|it just ends up as memes
 16:00:17 |c|~hollywood|so do pms
 16:00:18 |c|~hollywood|lol
 16:00:18 |c|&raseri|do it again
 16:00:36 |c|#Disjunction|oh another thing
 16:00:37 |c|@Montsegur|Ok I'll make a PM after this is done
 16:00:37 |c|&raseri|and focusing more on things brought up in the thread
 16:00:37 |c|@Kiyo|new pm
 16:00:38 |c|#Disjunction|I had on the paste
 16:00:39 |c|@Kiyo|nice.
 16:00:42 |c|#Disjunction|was discussing S/S-
 16:00:44 |c|&raseri|add tennis so we can have
 16:00:45 |c|&raseri|donuts
 16:00:50 |c|@Kiyo|we dont need S / S-
 16:00:52 |c|#Disjunction|:donut:
 16:00:55 |c|@Kiyo|if a mon is borderline S
 16:00:57 |c|@Kiyo|its A+
 16:00:59 |c|@Kiyo|or should be
 16:01:02 |c|@Kiyo|see: magmortar
 16:01:03 |c|&raseri|^
 16:01:08 |c|@Kiyo|should be A+
 16:01:09 |c|@Blast Chance|ya
 16:01:13 |c|#Disjunction|I feel like
 16:01:14 |c|@Kiyo|i took a step back and looked at it
 16:01:15 |c|@Montsegur|-
 16:01:15 |c|#Disjunction|we're going around
 16:01:17 |c|@Blast Chance|no s+ or s-
 16:01:17 |c|~hollywood|what changed your mind
 16:01:17 |c|#Disjunction|in circles now
 16:01:21 |c|@Montsegur|nigga noms it for S
 16:01:29 |c|@Montsegur|and now that he caught flak wants it in A+
 16:01:33 |c|~hollywood|yes so you ask him why he changed his mind about it
 16:01:37 |c|~hollywood|rather than pointing fingers
 16:01:47 |c|@Montsegur|you asked for me :)
 16:01:47 |c|#Disjunction|I honestly still support mag for S
 16:01:50 |c|@Kiyo|it doesnt have the staying power it needs to be effective
 16:01:52 |c|&raseri|don-don donuts, let's go nuts
 16:01:55 |c|~hollywood|common courtesy 101: how not to be a dick
 16:02:15 |c|~hollywood|magmortar is also ugly
 16:02:21 |c|@Montsegur|its a duck
 16:02:24 |L| LeoLancaster
 16:02:26 |c|@Kiyo|its also partially due to the fact aht
 16:02:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :12|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 16:02:32 |c|@Kiyo|i want to abuse lilligant and vivillon
 16:02:35 |c|~hollywood|it's not a duck
 16:02:37 |c|@Kiyo|and idont want people to know mag is good
 16:02:38 |J| pus shaneghoul
 16:02:38 |c|&raseri|booburn
 16:02:38 |c|#Disjunction|Mag is quite splashable, it's consistent no matter which set you use, it's reliable despite its reliance on Focus Blast
 16:02:44 |c|@Montsegur|wait magmar is the duck
 16:02:48 |c|~hollywood|i never thought it was reliable
 16:02:51 |c|@Kiyo|i mean i can still argue it for S
 16:02:57 |c|@Kiyo|but i think its borderline
 16:02:59 |c|#Disjunction|and I don't think I even need to talk about its threat level or effect on the meta
 16:03:02 |c|@Kiyo|im happy with S or A+
 16:03:02 |c|&raseri|its a+ imo
 16:03:02 |c|~hollywood|it's matchup-dependent
 16:03:11 |c|~hollywood|it just so happens that a lot of people in nu dont know how to play non-balance
 16:03:11 |c|@Montsegur|lets get back to the definitions
 16:03:12 |c|@Kiyo|its really not matchup dependent
 16:03:14 |c|@Blast Chance|if it's borderline just put it a+ then
 16:03:16 |c|@Montsegur|we've got A
 16:03:17 |c|@Kiyo|it just shits on all playstyles
 16:03:18 |c|@Kiyo|lol
 16:03:19 |c|~hollywood|and that's mag's best matchup
 16:03:21 |c|&raseri|not rain
 16:03:22 |c|~hollywood|it's sO bad vs offense
 16:03:23 |c|&raseri|:)
 16:03:50 |c|#Disjunction|at least this proved that the new criteria is still subjective
 16:03:54 |c|~hollywood|definitions
 16:03:59 |c|~hollywood|S rank: hammered out
 16:03:59 |c|#Disjunction|it'll at least provide structure to posts
 16:04:00 |c|@Kiyo|nah dude mag functions well vs offense
 16:04:05 |c|@Kiyo|its just not a free switch in to shit
 16:04:09 |c|@Kiyo|like it is vs balance
 16:04:11 |c|~hollywood|A rank: S-rank definitions, just not as S-rank
 16:04:19 |c|~hollywood|B: replace S with A
 16:04:21 |c|&raseri|b-rank: worse than a rank but still good
 16:04:24 |c|~hollywood|C: replace A with B
 16:04:33 |c|&raseri|d: niche shit
 16:04:37 |c|&raseri|e: bad shit
 16:04:46 |c|~hollywood|E: might have a niche but that niche isnt important enough to consider it for a serious team
 16:04:50 |c|@Montsegur|but C rank mons might fill out 4/5 but not be B
 16:04:58 |c|&raseri|owell
 16:05:06 |c|&raseri|if it barely fills 4/5
 16:05:07 |c|&raseri|it can be c
 16:05:10 |c|&raseri|we can be subjective
 16:05:22 |c|~hollywood|a C rank pokemon can't fill 4/5
 16:05:25 |c|&raseri|the criteria are a starting point
 16:05:29 |c|&raseri|not an ending point
 16:05:30 |c|~hollywood|if it does those things but not well
 16:05:30 |c|&raseri|imo
 16:05:35 |c|~hollywood|it doesnt really do those things at all does it
 16:05:43 |c|&raseri|aurorus for s
 16:05:48 |c|~hollywood|if youd never use that pokemon for that thing
 16:05:55 |c|~hollywood|then it doesnt really do it
 16:05:58 |raw|<div class="broadcast-blue"><b>&amp;raseri: aurorus for s</b></div>
 16:05:58 |c|~hollywood|even if it does
 16:06:02 |c|~hollywood|stop.
 16:06:23 |c|~hollywood|what are the criteria we wanted out of S?
 16:06:25 |c|@Montsegur|ok so we have the definitions that we want to apply to every mon
 16:06:25 |c|&raseri|ugh fck my headphones are breaking
 16:06:32 |c|@Montsegur|and we don't wanna change them per rank
 16:06:43 |c|@Montsegur|or not to a serious extent
 16:06:50 |c|@Montsegur|just the amount of change you mentioned above
 16:06:59 |c|@Blast Chance|so what's the definition of s anyway
 16:07:06 |c|~hollywood|i just asked that
 16:07:08 |c|#Disjunction|criteria for S should be fulfilling all 5 criteria with a limited number of the negative criteria
 16:07:09 |c|~hollywood|still wanting it
 16:07:17 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction can you list
 16:07:20 |c|@Montsegur|the pros / cons pls
 16:07:25 |c|@Montsegur|cause you said you were keeping a list
 16:07:28 |N| HATE IDIOTS|metaphysical
 16:07:37 |c|~hollywood|note i also dont think definitions are actually that important
 16:07:41 |c|~hollywood|you can twist anything to fit anything
 16:07:44 |c|#Disjunction|passive, outclassed, weak to hazards, speed, general bulk, matchup
 16:07:52 |c|#Disjunction|for negatives
 16:07:53 |c|#Disjunction|Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
 16:07:55 |c|#Disjunction|for positives
 16:08:01 |c|@Montsegur|no matter what we do its gonna be somewhat subjective
 16:08:10 |c|~hollywood|yea like no C rank mon
 16:08:13 |c|~hollywood|should be splashable and reliable
 16:08:45 |c|@Blast Chance|definitions are still important for the initial ranks
 16:08:50 |c|@Blast Chance|after that
 16:08:57 |c|@Blast Chance|you can just compare the mons
 16:09:00 |c|@Blast Chance|in those ranks
 16:09:04 |c|~hollywood|so i guess we can more clearly define the lower ranks
 16:09:13 |c|~hollywood|i dont expect any C rank pokemon to be splashable or reliable
 16:09:14 |L| Pokedots
 16:09:15 |c|~hollywood|if it was it wouldnt be C rank
 16:09:26 |c|@Montsegur|blast we wanted to avoid doing that though
 16:09:32 |c|~hollywood|in fact i dont really expect any of those except maybe threat level to apply to C rank
 16:09:54 |c|#Disjunction|it might have ok levels of consistency
 16:10:01 |c|@Montsegur|C rank mons can be consistent
 16:10:07 |c|~hollywood|why?
 16:10:21 |c|~hollywood|there aren't so many consistent pokemon that we can't fit them all in B or higher
 16:10:22 |c|@Montsegur|the job that they might be doing might not be warrant a higher rank
 16:10:32 |c|#Disjunction|Rampardos is very consistent at its job of setting Stealth Rock
 16:10:36 |c|@Montsegur|like I would argue that miltank is a p consistent pokemon at setting up rocks and paralyzing shit
 16:10:51 |c|@Montsegur|but I don't think it should be a B mon
 16:10:58 |c|~hollywood|yes but that doesnt make it a consistent pokemon
 16:11:07 |c|~hollywood|if you only wanted a consistent stealth rock setter
 16:11:13 |c|@Montsegur|it consistently sets up rocks and paralyzes stuff?
 16:11:14 |c|@Blast Chance|I thought c rank was like for things
 16:11:20 |c|~hollywood|nvm that should really never be a thing
 16:11:21 |c|~hollywood|lol
 16:11:21 |c|@Blast Chance|that are consistent
 16:11:25 |c|@Blast Chance|just not practical
 16:11:28 |c|@Blast Chance|usually
 16:11:31 |c|#Disjunction|Blast just try and forget
 16:11:35 |c|#Disjunction|what VR has been up until now
 16:11:37 |c|~hollywood|i dont think something can be impractical and consistent
 16:11:38 |c|#Disjunction|we're trying to rework it
 16:12:18 |c|@Montsegur|miltank fits some of the more negative criteria though
 16:12:23 |c|@Montsegur|which is why it should be ranked lower
 16:12:24 |c|#Disjunction|yes
 16:12:27 |c|#Disjunction|I was about to say
 16:12:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :12|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 16:12:36 |c|#Disjunction|we're not only judging them based on the positive criteria
 16:12:37 |c|~hollywood|yea i'm looking at Cs
 16:12:44 |c|~hollywood|and i really dont see anything consistent or splashable
 16:13:04 |c|@Montsegur|I'd say there are a lot of consistent rock setters
 16:13:05 |c|~hollywood|anything that could be considered either
 16:13:10 |c|@Montsegur|but a lot of them are either passive
 16:13:10 |c|#Disjunction|ok how about we make Consistency and Splashability a requirement for B rank and up
 16:13:11 |c|~hollywood|is much less so than other things in higher ranks
 16:13:18 |L| Jizznado
 16:13:28 |c|#Disjunction|that leaves three positive requirements for C Ranks
 16:13:31 |c|~hollywood|carbink can consistently set stealth rock
 16:13:35 |c|~hollywood|but that doesnt make it a consistent pokemon
 16:13:41 |c|@Montsegur|a lot of the positive traits get over shadowed by the mons negative traights
 16:13:44 |c|&raseri|so can graveller
 16:13:45 |c|&raseri|:)
 16:13:52 |c|@Montsegur|which is how it should be in the lower ranks
 16:13:55 |c|~hollywood|you almost never want a pokemon strictly for the job of getting up stealth rock
 16:14:34 |c|~hollywood|"consistent rocks setter" is not a role but a trait
 16:14:50 |c|@Montsegur|like I'd say ninjask can consistently uturn on things, but its crippling rock weakness and somewhat weaker of a uturn makes it a C rank mon
 16:15:00 |c|~hollywood|yes and "consistent u-turner" is not a role
 16:15:03 |c|~hollywood|it's a trait
 16:15:23 |c|#Disjunction|what would your example of a Pokemon that fills the consistent role be, holly?
 16:15:26 |c|~hollywood|"consistent pokemon" should be all around consistent in the things it does
 16:15:34 |c|#Disjunction|if "fulfilling its intended purpose" is not what you're looking for
 16:15:51 |c|~hollywood|fulfilling its intended purpose is what i'm looking for
 16:15:59 |c|~hollywood|ninjask's intended purpose isnt to use u-turn
 16:16:10 |c|@Montsegur|its to outpace things and grab momentum
 16:16:11 |c|~hollywood|rampardos's intended purpose isnt to use stealth rock
 16:16:19 |c|~hollywood|those things are important parts of them
 16:16:25 |c|~hollywood|but if that was all they did they would never see use
 16:16:41 |c|~hollywood|ninjask doesnt hit very hard which is why it uses u-turn so much
 16:16:46 |c|#Disjunction|the only reason I would use Rampardos is its Stealth Rock set, though
 16:16:48 |c|~hollywood|so it's not a consistent offensive pokemon in comparison to scyther
 16:16:56 |c|~hollywood|which hits hard and gets momentum and is fast
 16:16:59 |c|#Disjunction|I don't care about anything else Rampardos does as long as it gets Stealth Rock
 16:17:06 |c|@Montsegur|so for below B rank we should just rank it based on how little negatives it fills out?
 16:17:06 |c|~hollywood|rampardos sets stealth rock but it's also really strong
 16:17:17 |c|~hollywood|if you just wanted to get up stealth rock you'd be better off using carbink
 16:17:30 |c|@Montsegur|carbink doesn't have mold breaker
 16:17:32 |c|#Disjunction|that's not true
 16:17:43 |c|#Disjunction|if I wanted a dedicated rocker I wouldn't ignore Carbink entirely
 16:17:45 |c|#Disjunction|and go for Rhydon
 16:17:54 |c|~hollywood|yes because rhydon is consistent in many ways
 16:17:56 |c|~hollywood|not just setting stealth rock
 16:18:01 |c|#Disjunction|so while Carbink has a level of consistency it is entirely outclassed by Rhydon
 16:18:06 |c|~hollywood|rampardos sees little usage because it's only consistent in one way
 16:18:12 |c|@Montsegur|but if he needs something to get up rocks against xatu teams then he would go for rampardos
 16:18:23 |c|~hollywood|so it isn't a "consistent pokemon" even if it is "consistent" in its main intended role
 16:18:36 |c|@Montsegur|i dont follow
 16:18:39 |c|@Montsegur|i kind of do
 16:18:47 |c|&raseri|raspardos
 16:18:49 |J| geeezeer
 16:18:52 |c|&raseri|(i dont have anything to contribute)
 16:18:54 |c|#Disjunction|Rampardos doesn't have the same level as splashability as Rhydon, though
 16:19:13 |c|#Disjunction|I guess it isn't consistent either
 16:19:15 |c|#Disjunction|as a Stealth Rocker
 16:19:19 |c|@Montsegur|but it still consistently sets up rocks
 16:19:20 |c|#Disjunction|because it only has one shot to do it
 16:19:23 |c|~hollywood|miltank consistently paralyzes things and sets stealth rock
 16:19:24 |c|@Montsegur|cept against taunt
 16:19:24 |c|#Disjunction|it reliably sets them up
 16:19:27 |c|#Disjunction|but not consistently
 16:19:32 |c|#Disjunction|reliable =/= consistent
 16:19:33 |c|~hollywood|however, it's also setup fodder for klinklang and rhydon
 16:19:42 |c|@Montsegur|I'd argue that things in D / even C- shouldn't be consistent
 16:19:42 |c|~hollywood|which are two really high threat pokemon in the tier
 16:19:48 |c|#Disjunction|which would be
 16:19:50 |c|#Disjunction|its matchup
 16:19:57 |c|#Disjunction|referring to another negative we have listed
 16:19:59 |c|~hollywood|so it might be consistent in those roles but other pokemon can fulfill those roles while also beating those things
 16:20:03 |L| geeezeer
 16:20:14 |c|~hollywood|everything ranked should be consistent in some way
 16:20:17 |c|@Montsegur|which means its outclassed
 16:20:21 |c|~hollywood|that doesnt make everything ranked a consistent pokemon
 16:20:26 |c|~hollywood|yes, outclassed means inconsistent
 16:20:34 |c|#Disjunction|I wouldn't say that
 16:20:38 |c|~hollywood|if it were more consistent in those important roles, it wouldn't be outclassed
 16:20:48 |c|~hollywood|i guess it ties into splashability
 16:20:59 |c|@Montsegur|a lot of these things tie into each other
 16:21:10 |c|~hollywood|yes miltank is consistent in x roles but rhydon is also consistent in those x roles while also being consistent in y roles
 16:21:11 |c|@Montsegur|we're just trying to make it easier to understand for everyone
 16:21:16 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 16:21:27 |c|~hollywood|i dont personally consider miltank consistent
 16:21:30 |c|~hollywood|if i did i'd use it
 16:21:44 |c|@Montsegur|which ties back to the subjectivity of all of this
 16:21:46 |c|~hollywood|but it's also definitely not nearly as splashable as higher ranked support pokemon
 16:22:00 |L| Gargamod
 16:22:04 |c|~hollywood|and its threat level is minimal vs most teams
 16:22:09 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 16:22:21 |c|@Montsegur|and it also has negative traits that affect it
 16:22:24 |c|#Disjunction|I think holly's argument could lead to another positive trait
 16:22:27 |c|#Disjunction|that some mons should follow
 16:22:31 |userstats|total:18|guests:0| :10|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 16:22:31 |c|#Disjunction|miltank IS a consistent rocker
 16:22:34 |c|#Disjunction|but it doesn't do much else
 16:22:35 |c|~hollywood|volbeat is really consistent in its role
 16:22:41 |c|#Disjunction|so perhaps number of roles a mon can fill in one slot
 16:22:42 |c|~hollywood|it's one of, if not THE best, in its job
 16:22:47 |c|~hollywood|but its job isnt that important
 16:22:47 |c|#Disjunction|is another positive criteria we could include?
 16:22:52 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 16:22:54 |c|~hollywood|because the archetype you use it on is not consistent
 16:22:57 |c|#Disjunction|like Rhydon fills 5/6 defensive niches
 16:23:02 |c|#Disjunction|along with a couple offensive ones
 16:23:02 |c|~hollywood|that would be versatility/splashability
 16:23:08 |N| shaneghoul|pusshaneghoul
 16:23:11 |c|@Montsegur|like rhydon can be rocks / defensive / specially / CM phsycic check
 16:23:22 |c|@Montsegur|versatility is like rhydon can be defensive and offensive
 16:23:28 |c|~hollywood|weak to fighting and dislikes knock off, still beats malamar
 16:23:31 |c|~hollywood|:-)
 16:23:33 |c|@Montsegur|ya
 16:23:42 |c|@Montsegur|so thats a role that you can put onto your team
 16:23:48 |c|#Disjunction|I'd prefer rewording splashability to versatility then
 16:23:50 |c|~hollywood|do based on
 16:23:51 |c|@Montsegur|cause you need some way to beat malamar on a good team
 16:23:52 |c|#Disjunction|and explicitly defining it
 16:23:57 |c|~hollywood|splashability/consistency/threat level
 16:24:00 |c|~hollywood|what are the other ones?
 16:24:03 |c|@Montsegur|versatility isn't splashability tho
 16:24:06 |c|@Montsegur|imo
 16:24:12 |c|~hollywood|if a pokemon is versatile it's splashable
 16:24:15 |c|#Disjunction|reliability and effect on meta
 16:24:16 |J| Pokedots
 16:24:18 |c|~hollywood|the reverse isnt
 16:24:20 |c|~hollywood|inherently true
 16:24:26 |c|~hollywood|but it's usually the case
 16:24:28 |N| pus shaneghoul|shaneghoul
 16:24:29 |c|@Blast Chance|tauros has one set
 16:24:41 |c|#Disjunction|yes but that one set fills a number of offensive niches
 16:24:52 |c|~hollywood|ok so
 16:24:54 |c|@Montsegur|tauros has 3 sets :(
 16:24:56 |c|#Disjunction|so its not all about how many different sets a mon can run
 16:24:58 |c|@Montsegur|its only ranked for one tho
 16:24:59 |c|~hollywood|checklist for archeops
 16:25:07 |c|@Montsegur|versatile
 16:25:09 |c|~hollywood|i think it has a very high threat level
 16:25:13 |c|@Montsegur|y
 16:25:21 |c|~hollywood|i dont think any of the others
 16:25:25 |c|~hollywood|necessarily apply
 16:25:26 |c|@Montsegur|its pretty splashable across offensive teams
 16:25:32 |c|~hollywood|i strongly disagree
 16:25:38 |c|~hollywood|and even if that is the case
 16:25:40 |c|#Disjunction|it has a strong effect on the meta
 16:25:42 |c|~hollywood|that's just offensive teams
 16:25:47 |c|#Disjunction|it forces you to run flying checks
 16:25:52 |c|~hollywood|i dont think it has that strong of an effect on the meta either
 16:25:59 |c|~hollywood|that's true, but good teams should have flying checks anywas
 16:26:03 |c|#Disjunction|you don't run flying checks for any other mons
 16:26:03 |c|~hollywood|even if archeops wasnt in the tier
 16:26:11 |c|#Disjunction|it's literally just chops
 16:26:12 |c|@Montsegur|swellow
 16:26:17 |c|~hollywood|you run normal checks
 16:26:19 |c|#Disjunction|swellow doesn't run flying stabs now
 16:26:22 |c|~hollywood|which are also flying checks
 16:26:31 |c|@Montsegur|who doesn't run BB on physical swellow
 16:26:31 |c|#Disjunction|that's not true
 16:26:34 |c|~hollywood|yes
 16:26:35 |c|~hollywood|it is
 16:26:35 |c|#Disjunction|if you're running rocks yea
 16:26:40 |c|~hollywood|and physical swellow isnt good
 16:26:40 |c|#Disjunction|but if you're running ghosts or gurdurr
 16:26:41 |c|~hollywood|=\
 16:26:44 |c|#Disjunction|as your normal checks
 16:26:46 |c|~hollywood|you dont run ghosts to check normals
 16:26:49 |c|#Disjunction|those aren't flying resists
 16:26:52 |c|~hollywood|because then you get stomped by kanga
 16:27:01 |c|~hollywood|barring maybe like
 16:27:02 |c|~hollywood|gourgeist
 16:27:32 |c|#Disjunction|sometimes my teams are just naturally good against kanga
 16:27:36 |c|~hollywood|also you run flying checks for scyther too
 16:27:50 |c|@Blast Chance|yeah idt archeops is that splashable
 16:27:52 |c|~hollywood|and vivillon
 16:27:55 |c|~hollywood|because you run rhydon
 16:27:59 |c|~hollywood|which covers all of these things
 16:27:59 |c|~hollywood|lol
 16:28:05 |c|@Blast Chance|all it really does is hit hard
 16:28:13 |c|~hollywood|i really dont think archeops has a large effect on the metagame/teambuilding
 16:28:17 |c|@Blast Chance|at least on offense
 16:28:36 |c|~hollywood|it's also
 16:28:41 |c|~hollywood|impossible to counter in the teambuilder
 16:28:43 |c|~hollywood|so you just
 16:28:46 |c|~hollywood|dont really bother countering it
 16:29:00 |c|~hollywood|which goes further into power level
 16:29:04 |c|~hollywood|or whatever wording we decided for that
 16:29:14 |c|@Montsegur|threat level?
 16:29:15 |c|@Montsegur|splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
 16:29:15 |c|~hollywood|but takes away from the other cats
 16:29:19 |c|~hollywood|yea threat level
 16:29:32 |c|~hollywood|tauros, on the other hand
 16:29:34 |c|~hollywood|i think fits all of those
 16:29:46 |c|~hollywood|effect on the metagame less than the others, but it's still there
 16:30:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok so if a mon excels really well at one then it can give a boost to the others?
 16:30:08 |c|~hollywood|i dont think so
 16:30:18 |c|#Disjunction|I still don't think chops deserves S
 16:30:21 |c|~hollywood|i dont think archeops should be s
 16:30:23 |c|@Blast Chance|me neither
 16:30:25 |c|~hollywood|havent for a while
 16:30:34 |c|@Blast Chance|but everyone else does haha!
 16:30:51 |c|~hollywood|i originally got it up there
 16:30:53 |c|~hollywood|but that was
 16:30:56 |c|~hollywood|mega steelix meta
 16:30:57 |c|@Montsegur|and when I moved it down there was a shit storm (partially cause we didn't discuss it)
 16:31:00 |c|~hollywood|which was a very long time ago
 16:31:06 |c|~hollywood|yea you should
 16:31:10 |c|~hollywood|not give into shitstorms
 16:31:11 |c|@Blast Chance|well yeah we shouldve
 16:31:12 |c|#Disjunction|but while I don't think it deserves S, it definitely has a strong impact on the meta imo
 16:31:16 |c|~hollywood|just make sure everyone is on board before you do something
 16:31:19 |c|~hollywood|then you can pin it on us
 16:31:28 |c|~hollywood|and they'll get mad at us instead
 16:31:35 |c|@Montsegur|I do that half the time but I take responsability when i also agree
 16:31:36 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
 16:32:03 |c|~hollywood|the problem with archeops is that even offensive teams still want defensive synergy
 16:32:09 |c|~hollywood|and archeops offers little to none
 16:32:14 |c|@Montsegur|bulkchops
 16:32:20 |c|~hollywood|because it cant even switch into most resisted hits without going into defeatist
 16:32:31 |userstats|total:19|guests:0| :11|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
 16:32:33 |c|~hollywood|bulkychops is ass and has basically always been ass
 16:32:37 |c|~hollywood|just use offensive defog
 16:32:47 |c|@Blast Chance|no that sounds even worse
 16:32:51 |c|~hollywood|nah it's good
 16:32:56 |c|@Montsegur|i like offensive defog
 16:32:57 |c|~hollywood|you just dont use it as a dedicated hazard remover
 16:33:07 |c|~hollywood|helps vs spikes-stack
 16:33:17 |c|@Montsegur|i like late game defoggers
 16:33:33 |c|@Montsegur|cause most people think you'll defog right away if you have it
 16:33:36 |c|~hollywood|you cant really use bulky archeops as a dedicated hazard remover either
 16:33:44 |c|~hollywood|which is why i like offensive defog so much more
 16:33:50 |c|#Disjunction|ok well
 16:33:52 |c|#Disjunction|in any case
 16:33:57 |c|~hollywood|so hard to find free turns defensively with it
 16:33:59 |c|#Disjunction|we're decided on the criteria-based system?
 16:34:00 |c|@Montsegur|i was thinking more of a normal check, which is what it originally was intended for (i think)
 16:34:01 |c|~hollywood|not hard to do the same offensively
 16:34:03 |c|~hollywood|i think so
 16:34:14 |c|#Disjunction|did we want to re-rank everything
 16:34:20 |c|@Montsegur|not today
 16:34:25 |c|~hollywood|yea just not now
 16:34:25 |c|@Montsegur|we can start
 16:34:32 |c|@Montsegur|I'll make a PM
 16:34:35 |c|#Disjunction|why not start a piratepad/pm
 16:34:36 |c|~hollywood|this would be the ideal situation to piratepad
 16:34:37 |c|@Montsegur|and we can do it over the next week
 16:34:37 |c|~hollywood|yea
 16:34:44 |c|#Disjunction|then we can work on it throughout the week
 16:34:50 |c|~hollywood|because we're not judging based on people's posts
 16:34:51 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 16:34:55 |c|@Montsegur|**break**
 16:34:58 |c|@Montsegur|hut hut hike
 16:35:01 |c|#Disjunction|I gotta go in 5 anyhow
 16:35:02 |c|~hollywood|gross
 16:35:06 |c|~hollywood|my dad just turned on football
 16:35:14 |c|#Disjunction|(puke)
 16:35:15 |c|~hollywood|football is for BOYS
 16:35:16 |c|@Montsegur|we still need to include peoples posts
 16:35:23 |c|~hollywood|boys are ICKY AND HAVE COOTIES
 16:35:28 |c|~hollywood|yea but it's not the main focus
 16:35:32 |c|#Disjunction|just not in the preliminary ranks
 16:35:34 |c|#Disjunction|imo
 16:35:36 |c|@Montsegur|i would just include the general consensus of the thread as another vote
 16:35:47 |c|@Montsegur|anyways
 16:35:56 |c|@Montsegur|tis been fun, ill get the PM up now
 16:35:57 |c|#Disjunction|ok can I make post now or should we wait til we have ranks hammered out
 16:36:04 |c|@Montsegur|I'll make a post
 16:36:05 |c|@Montsegur|you can leave
 16:36:07 |c|#Disjunction|but I have
 16:36:08 |c|#Disjunction|logs
 16:36:09 |c|#Disjunction|nerd
 16:36:09 |c|@Montsegur|like you need to
 16:36:09 |c|~hollywood|hey guys vigoroth is rly good
 16:36:11 |N| shaneghoul|pusshaneghoul
 16:36:11 |c|~hollywood|read about it
 16:36:12 |c|~hollywood|http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/oras-nu-viability-rankings.3545276/page-12#post-6449005
 16:36:24 |L|~hollywood
 16:36:28 |c|@Blast Chance|(monkey)
 16:36:44 |c|#Disjunction|oh I guess
 16:36:47 |c|#Disjunction|I don't have logs
 16:36:52 |c|#Disjunction|oh well!
 16:36:55 |c|@Montsegur|yah
 16:37:00 |c|@Montsegur|hollwood needs to get them
 16:37:03 |c|@Montsegur|*y
 16:37:06 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
 16:37:15 |c|#Disjunction|it's not important
 16:37:18 |c|#Disjunction|i m o
 16:37:21 |L| Steakburgers
 16:37:41 |c|@Montsegur|raseri
 16:37:43 |c|@Montsegur|grab logs
 16:37:44 |c|@Montsegur|!
 16:37:48 |c|&raseri|ok
 16:38:28 |c|@Montsegur|ty
 16:38:32 |c|@Montsegur|paste em for me pls