S Rank Tier List for FE7

[GreatEclipse]

No one is necessary for an S rank save Hector. Not Matthew, not Raven, not Marcus, not Ninian, not Pent. What sets them apart from other units is their potential to make far larger contributions to that goal than others. Nino makes one of the largest possible contributions by unlocking 28x. Larger, in my view, than Pent ever does, though you are free to dispute that once we start arguing her new placement.

[Life]

No one is necessary for an S rank save Hector. Not Matthew, not Raven, not Marcus, not Ninian, not Pent. What sets them apart from other units is their potential to make far larger contributions to that goal than others. Nino makes one of the largest possible contributions by unlocking 28x. Larger, in my view, than Pent ever does, though you are free to dispute that once we start arguing her new placement.

Bull. I can make a very similar argument that Wil makes a just as large contribution by not dying in 16 as one death kills an S Rank. Your argument seems very contrived for the sake of just moving Nino far up the list.

The fact of the matter is that Nino cannot contribute as well as everyone else because she arrives light years after most of the people. No matter how important you believe 28x is, it doesn't cancel out all the negatives that Nino's low level and low stats bring to the table. Never mind completely destroy someone like Canas or Fiora who contributes much more to the team on many different levels.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[GreatEclipse]

Not dieing has nothing to do with using him. I can keep him alive without having him take any meaningful commands. You can have Nino do nothing in 28x if you think she would only get in the way, then bench her. That does not erase her main contribution.

[frat_tastic]

If we make this change, which is kind of boring and whatever but is logically sound enough I guess, then Hawkeye (or whoever recruits Hawkeye) should go up also for getting us Genesis.

Not that you were intentionally leaving this out, just thought it should be mentioned, as it would also need to be taken into account if/once Nino is moved around some.

EDIT: Also lets talk about Merlinus more. I don't feel like we ever came to a decision.

EDIT take 2: Also one thing I didn't even really think of, and it's probably been addressed forever ago before I was here, but what do we think about the Double Dash bonus items? If we take those into account, Matthew no longer is the only way we get a Silver Card, as one can be obtained via the bonus disk.

EDIT take 3: Also, how much credit does Nino get for these items/exp/tactics anyway? I mean I guess she gets most of the tactics credit since without her we don't even go to NoF, but the items are gotten by thieves/people with keys and the exp is gotten by everyone. I know Nino lets us come here, but she just gives us access to the stuff, she doesn't get it herself. Except the tactics bonus.

Edited March 27, 2010 by frat_tastic

[GreatEclipse]

Hector is the one who recruits him (As well as Nino), and he already has infinite worth, so it will not change anything for him.

The bonus disk has always been ignored because not all players have access to it.

I would credit her for allowing the team to make those contributions, and give individual team members credit for the contributions themselves. This is only off the top of my head, you could actually have an interesting discussion over this.

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

No one is necessary for an S rank save Hector. Not Matthew, not Raven, not Marcus, not Ninian, not Pent. What sets them apart from other units is their potential to make far larger contributions to that goal than others. Nino makes one of the largest possible contributions by unlocking 28x. Larger, in my view, than Pent ever does, though you are free to dispute that once we start arguing her new placement.

Um, no, because your argument has not been accepted. It is basically recruitment arguments 2.0. It is different in some ways, since conservation of ninjutsu GDP of the tier list was an argument that CATS accepted to counter recruitment args and it wouldn't apply here, but the real reason most of the rest of us disregard recruitment is simply because it's a storyline thing.

You also aren't accepting (nor did you ever even acknowledge) the argument that the tier list may assume you always go to every chapter or you recruit every unit that doesn't cost money. Nino should then go down because she makes getting there more difficult. She has to actually go out and talk to the guy. No other unit makes it more difficult to go to that chapter. Alternatively, she neither gets credit or punishment because we assume we make the convo happen in order to recruit/get to the chapter. It is simply an action we must do.

But more seriously, it's a convo no different than recruitment, and it opens up possibilities just like recruiting a character.

As for the support question, what's the big deal about that? Are we rewarding Alan because he gives Lance better stats (when within 3 squares), or are we simply looking at how they perform when they have the support boosts in place? If we are crediting units for giving the bonuses to other units and making them better, then maybe to make CATS and GE feel better about the consistency of the list we can stop that. However, that in no way requires us to not consider how the units perform once they have the supports in place.

Besides, seizing arguments are pretty similar to the Nino thing. Hector seizing allows us to move on in the game. Nino talking to Jaffar allows us to proceed to the gaiden. They are both us pushing a button when the unit is in the correct position. They both give access to a chapter. We've already decided that Hector's seizing can be disregarded in order to more accurately evaluate how much easier he makes S ranking the game. Nino's contribution through a conversation can similarly be disregarded.

To those that want to credit everyone for these convos, I ask out of curiosity, if this game had convos like fe4 where you get Cuan to talk to Finn and Finn gets +1 to some stats, do you credit Cuan for this? If Cuan did not run up and talk to him, Finn wouldn't get the bonus. You have to go to the effort to get Cuan to Finn and hit chat just to pull this off. If Hector could chat with Eliwood and permanently give him +3 def, does he get credit? Or do we recognize that this is a simple storyline event and just ignore it for Hector but assume Eliwood gets that +3 def at the time the convo is available? Personally, I see little reason to consider this convo for Hector's tier position.

[GreatEclipse]

Um, no, because your argument has not been accepted. It is basically recruitment arguments 2.0. It is different in some ways, since GDP of the tier list was an argument that CATS accepted to counter recruitment args and it wouldn't apply here, but the real reason most of the rest of us disregard recruitment is simply because it's a storyline thing.

That argument does not work because it is not a pure story event. There is a rationalization for why only Nino can talk to him. There is a rationalization for why Matthew is a Thief. None of that matters when you actually play the chapter.

You also aren't accepting (nor did you ever even acknowledge) the argument that the tier list may assume you always go to every chapter or you recruit every unit that doesn't cost money. Nino should then go down because she makes getting there more difficult. She has to actually go out and talk to the guy. No other unit makes it more difficult to go to that chapter. Alternatively, she neither gets credit or punishment because we assume we make the convo happen in order to recruit/get to the chapter. It is simply an action we must do.

Except we are not going to 28x without Nino. I could say "We are going to get the Silver Card anyway", but that does not change the fact that you need Matthew to do it. All contributions are simply a means to an end. You can dismiss anything by saying "I was going to do that anyway".

To those that want to credit everyone for these convos, I ask out of curiosity, if this game had convos like fe4 where you get Cuan to talk to Finn and Finn gets +1 to some stats, do you credit Cuan for this? If Cuan did not run up and talk to him, Finn wouldn't get the bonus. You have to go to the effort to get Cuan to Finn and hit chat just to pull this off. If Hector could chat with Eliwood and permanently give him +3 def, does he get credit?

Sure. If a thief can get credit for stealing a stat booster, this would make perfect sense.

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Narga_Rocks]

That argument does not work because it is not a pure story event. There is a rationalization for why only Nino can talk to him. There is a rationalization for why Matthew is a Thief. None of that matters when you actually play the chapter.

How does that differ from recruitment at all? Recruitment is very similar to your thing, but we disregard it as a part of storyline. Your "none of that ..." statement, if it works in any way for Nino, would work just as well for recruitment. But then, you (I think it was you anyway) were in favour of including everything a recruited unit does in evaluating the recruiter anyway, so this shouldn't surprise me. Still, the point is that it is a simple convo placed on us by the storyline, and that could be changed without affecting any unit abilities. Changing Raven's base spd to 1 and increasing Bartre's isn't something that can be altered without affecting unit performance. That's why we call Nino's thing storyline and disregard it. Convos just aren't very useful in analyzing how a unit helps us S-rank the game.

Except we are not going to 28x without Nino. I could say "We are going to get the Silver Card anyway", but that does not change the fact that you need Matthew to do it. All contributions are simply a means to an end. You can dismiss anything by saying "I was going to do that anyway".

We are going to recruit the guy:

unit A (A is not Nino) forces us to do nothing to pull it off.

Nino: forces us to send her up to Jaffar and talk to him.

unit A: no opportunity cost.

Nino: opportunity cost of setting up the chat.

Therefore: Nino down, because the other unit does nothing to make recruiting Jaffar harder, but Nino makes it harder because she forces us to go off and do something.

Nino makes our lives harder where no other unit does.

This argument could also apply to Hector and seizing. None of the other units make our lives difficult by needing to go to some tile and stand on it.

Besides, no, you can't say that we are going to get the card anyway. Either the OP or the community as a whole can define what it requires out of the tier list. Now, granted, if we are going for max free recruitment then that would need to be added to the first post, and possibly the title as well. But that doesn't alter the point in the case that we are. You can't just bring up anything as a requirement.

Now, the argument actually works better in the case of seizing, because that is something we clearly have to do and not an arbitrary rule added to the list like the ranks or recruiting everyone or whatever. But it could apply to the Nino thing if we choose to make it. And yes, if everyone wanted to add "get the silver card" as a requirement, then that would hurt Matthew.

Also, out of curiosity, you have to know this ain't happening ever. Not that I want to prove what CATS says about us a bunch of the time or anything, but I acknowledge that some of what he says may have some truth. I can see that this Nino thing won't happen, and surely you can, too. So I have to know, why bother? Sure, bringing it up in the first place makes sense to me. Might as well see what you can pull off and what you can't. But honestly, you've seen by now where this will end, so unless you are just interested in proving a point I can't figure out what you are looking to see happen. Besides all that, we clearly have different ideas of what units should get credit for and what they shouldn't. That isn't going to change. This is effectively a rift. If you can shove this change down our throats, it basically becomes your tier list, because it is now your rules, your idea of what a unit gets credit for. That isn't a very different situation from what we currently have, only with a role reversal. What's the point? If you want to have a tier list that gives credit for everything you want a unit to have credit from, make your own list.

As for your last point, you keep linking things thieves do to what others do when they are so clearly vastly different (I'm not actually surprised you'd give credit to Hector under those conditions). I must ask why you keep doing that. Have something against thieves? One of those is a funtion of the character's skills. The other is a story event. Why do you constantly have if A then B when the two are so clearly unrelated? You might as well say "if Eliwood gets credit for being able to swing his pointy stick at an enemy then Nino should get credit for taking us to 28x". It's just about as related as the thief thing, hence my question about you and thieves.

Seriously, stick with class abilities and stats and what the characters can use for ranking because the rest of it isn't really a good measure of unit performance, just a measure of plot. (Sofiya maybe shouldn't get credit for the guiding ring under this setup)

[Life]

Besides, seizing arguments are pretty similar to the Nino thing. Hector seizing allows us to move on in the game. Nino talking to Jaffar allows us to proceed to the gaiden. They are both us pushing a button when the unit is in the correct position. They both give access to a chapter. We've already decided that Hector's seizing can be disregarded in order to more accurately evaluate how much easier he makes S ranking the game. Nino's contribution through a conversation can similarly be disregarded.

Why didn't I think of this? Makes perfect sense.

EDIT: I want to note that people dropped off of the lower-mid/upper-mid conversation to tackle Merlinus and then Nino. While I feel these are kinda big issues on how radical they are, I want to go back to the fact that nobody really put forth an argument against Geitz > Dorcas.

Anyone want to disagree with Geitz > Dorcas and why?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Admiral Lifey Crunch

[Florete]

Anyone want to disagree with Geitz > Dorcas and why?

Since you haven't really gotten any other opinions on this, I'll just throw out my agreement on Geitz > Dorcas.

[CATS]

EDIT: I want to note that people dropped off of the lower-mid/upper-mid conversation to tackle Merlinus and then Nino. While I feel these are kinda big issues on how radical they are, I want to go back to the fact that nobody really put forth an argument against Geitz > Dorcas.

Anyone want to disagree with Geitz > Dorcas and why?

I'm pretty sure I already agreed, but if not, then I'll say it again; I agree. Will respond to other junk later, too tl;dr for now.

EDIT: Oops, noticed this comment.

Also, out of curiosity, you have to know this ain't happening ever. Not that I want to prove what CATS says about us a bunch of the time or anything, but I acknowledge that some of what he says may have some truth.

Out of curiosity, what do I say about you a bunch of the time?

Edited March 27, 2010 by CATS

[GreatEclipse]

That they simply disregard arguments they dislike even when they are logically valid.

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Florete]

That they simply disregard arguments they dislike even when they are logically valid.

You make it sound like a crime that we avoid something we don't like.

[Narga_Rocks]

That they simply ignore arguments they dislike even when they are logically valid.

Being logically valid doesn't mean anything when mutually exclusive ideas can both be logically valid. If we have to choose one, what's the difference which one we choose? May as well pick the one that more people like or the one we have been using so far (the fact they are the same viewpoint just makes it all the more appropriate). You simply have a different opinion of what units should get credit for. We disagree. That's all. Stop trying to make it look like we are some kind of irrational community just because you don't get what you want. There are multiple ways to look at/define what is a "contribution to S-ranking HHM" and most of them are most certainly logically valid. Get over it.

Out of curiosity, what do I say about you a bunch of the time?

The whole blocking ideas we don't like simply because we don't like them. Using force of presence to block changes. That kind of thing. I was leading into a "this change isn't happening so get over it" type of statement, so figured it was appropriate to at least acknowledge that my coming statements may be a decent example of some of the things you say about the SF community.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Narga_Rocks

[GreatEclipse]

I was talking about what CATS said, not what I think. You can make inconsistent standards if want. You should be up front about this, however. If you can throw out an argument simply because you dislike the implications, you cannot claim your list to be in anyway objective.

[Narga_Rocks]

I was talking about what CATS said, not what I think.

Oh, I was hoping you were answering my question about what you are aiming for in all this when you can see where it will end. Sorry for thinking you were actually participating in the conversation rather than just responding to whatever you felt like. My mistake.

You can make inconsistent standards if want. You should be up front about this, however. If you can throw out an argument simply because you dislike the implications, you cannot claim your list to be in anyway objective.

And again, our outlook is not inconsistent in the least. Plot driven conversations like recruitment simply don't belong on the list because they aren't a good way to measure a unit's performance. If we are attempting to measure a unit's performance as it affects S ranking hard mode, it is perfectly consistent to do this. It is also an objective way of setting up the rules. Again, the fact you don't seem to like this outlook has no bearing on its logical consistency or objectivity. It just means that it gives you something to complain about.

However, if it makes you feel better to think this way of us, go ahead. I clearly can't convince you since you've already made your decision. Clearly nothing less than us doing whatever you want us to will convince you that we are being objective. You clearly are the holder of absolute truth and any standard we hold in defiance of your truth is clearly inconsistent.

[nflchamp]

GE, you're going to have to accept that you're argument isn't the only logical one out there. I don't care if your argument is logical if I feel another argument is logical and is better than yours.

[frat_tastic]

I mean, his argument is logical in the given set of rules for the tier list that have been stated, "who helps us S-Rank the most". Under those rules, his Nino argument is logically sound, since she grants us access to a chapter which really helps us out in our goal of S-Ranking the game (his positioning of her might not be, but we haven't gotten to that point in the discussion yet). The counter-arguments here are the ones which are technically illogical, based on the given tier list standards, with the only justification being that they don't like the logic behind it, even though the logic is correct.

Basically the standards for the tier list need to change in order for GE's Nino argument to become illogical. In this sense, I don't feel that they should be changed. The goal of this list is stupidly obvious, to S-Rank, so our standards are stupidly obvious as well, who helps us S-Rank the easiest. We don't need a bunch of other rules for this list, since our goal is clearly defined, whereas in another tier list it may not be so obvious.

EDIT: I guess another thing that I'm trying to say (although it doesn't seem to be coming out very clearly) is that we have differing views on what seems to constitute "gameplay" and "story", and these are causing inconsistencies. For instance, we want to credit Matthew for his thieving functions, since his class is a thief. However, we only do not wish to credit Merlinus for his convoy function, we wish to not even tier him, because people, for some reason beyond me I guess, don't see this as part of "gameplay" (why, I don't know, since it seems dumb to credit one class for something and totally ignore what another class does). We also wish to give credit for supports, which are totally character driven, but have an effect on gameplay as well. We do not, however, wish to credit Nino for her conversation since it is character driven, even though it also has an effect on gameplay. We just have all of these inconsistencies, and our only reasoning is because some people don't like the more logical, consistent alternative.

Hopefully I'm making my thoughts clear. If I need to clarify anything, let me know, because I'm sorting of just typing as I think of things at this point.

Edited March 27, 2010 by frat_tastic

[GreatEclipse]

I was only clarifying something for CATS, my response was not even aimed at you.

And again, our outlook is not inconsistent in the least. Plot driven conversations like recruitment simply don't belong on the list because they aren't a good way to measure a unit's performance. If we are attempting to measure a unit's performance as it affects S ranking hard mode, it is perfectly consistent to do this. It is also an objective way of setting up the rules. Again, the fact you don't seem to like this outlook has no bearing on its logical consistency or objectivity. It just means that it gives you something to complain about.

Your outlook is completely inconsistent. You want to ignore recruitment because you think it is plot influenced. Recruitment is no more plot influenced than the fact that a unit is in a certain class as rationalized by the plot, and as a result can make different contributions than other units. Something is only a pure story event if it has no impact on how you play the chapter with your goal in mind.

I need to take on this character vs. unit argument in particular. You act like the two are inseparable when battle field conversations are involved, when that is clearly not true. Nino the character is what she says in her specific conversation with Jaffar. If all we wanted to debate was who the father of Lugh and Ray is, we would ignore whatever benefits having that conversation has for our ranks. Since we are, at the moment, only interested in our ranks, then the benefits we receive when we actually play the game are all that matter.

If all supports did was provide you with the conversations, we would ignore them. You have plenty of optional conversations you can take between characters on specific maps, but we assume you are not selecting them, for they provide not benefit to what we hope to accomplish. We are not concerned in this topic about the relationship between Kent and Sain as characters. When the support is mentioned, all we care about is the boost it provides to them as units.

[dondon151]

It seems to me that you're just butthurt.

To those that want to credit everyone for these convos, I ask out of curiosity, if this game had convos like fe4 where you get Cuan to talk to Finn and Finn gets +1 to some stats, do you credit Cuan for this? If Cuan did not run up and talk to him, Finn wouldn't get the bonus. You have to go to the effort to get Cuan to Finn and hit chat just to pull this off. If Hector could chat with Eliwood and permanently give him +3 def, does he get credit? Or do we recognize that this is a simple storyline event and just ignore it for Hector but assume Eliwood gets that +3 def at the time the convo is available? Personally, I see little reason to consider this convo for Hector's tier position.

Actually, Narga, I disagree. The stat bonuses, assuming that they have a non-negligible impact on a unit's performance, have some value assigned to them. We can't give Cuan full credit for giving Finn +1 to those stats, since Finn has to use them for them to matter, so probably we'd split the credit half-half. As for the hypothetical chat with Eliwood, that seems to me like an one-sided auto-A support, and I see no reason for Hector to not get partial credit.

[GreatEclipse]

It seems to me that you're just butthurt.

What a brilliant response to my argument! Such insightful comments make taking the time to break down the game mechanics all worth it.

Edited March 27, 2010 by GreatEclipse

[Florete]

My initial response would be to say you're trolling, but I'm growing tired of saying that to everyone.

[GreatEclipse]

Yes, what a terrible person I am, making unconventionality arguments that contradict majority opinion about a fictional character on an internet message board.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Yes, what a terrible person I am, making unconventionality arguments that contradict majority opinion about a fictional character on an internet message board.

Stop derailing the thread. If someone's made an inappropriate response to your argument, ignore them/report when you should, this sarcastic complaining you're doing is just begging for flames and it's not helping you.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Speedwagon

[CATS]

I'm pretty sure the point is, why should your arbitrary line be enforced rather than the arbitrary line that's already generally excepted?

GreatEclipse is not trying to enforce a new arbitrary line; his argument is based on the premise of the list ("Who helps most with S Ranking?") and on current tier list positions and the rationale behind them (primarily Matthew's position). He's making an argument, not trying to make a new rule. This is the difference between him and those who disagree with him. It's not a question of one arbitrary line vs another, like the Merlinus issue. Why should their arbitrary rule be enforced, rather than GE's argument accepted? The only possible answer is that more people, regardless of any rational analysis of the issue, would rather see the former happen than the latter. Notice how close this is to this tier list.

We have to draw an arbitrary distinction somewhere. If you don't use an arbitrary distinction to determine what's on the list and what's not, then you are essentially allowing anything to be put on the tier list. How about putting the player himself in top tier, since he can take credit for any action? The idea that we should tier units and not non-units is just as arbitrary as claiming we should only tier green-haired characters or only tier terrain types or tier units on the basis of Ranks. It's an arbitrary distinction that you have to make just in order to make discussion rational.

Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The question is, how many times does it have to be drawn, or how many lines have to be drawn? Are you going to draw the line once and then be consistent with it? Or are you going to draw as many different lines as you need to, as often as you need to, in order to serve your own personal interests? It should be obvious which one the people in this topic would rather do.

And your strawman of 'well the OP can just discard anything for any arbitrary reason if we allow this' is dumb. Obviously allowing such an arbitrary distinction would stifle debate rather than encourage it.

Your characterization of my argument is dumb. If you are going to draw arbitrary lines as to what types of argument are and aren't allowed (take note that this is different from simply defining what the player's goals are, or defining what constitutes a "unit"), without even needing to provide a reason why, then yes, the tier list can absolutely disregard anything based on whatever arbitrary reasons.

Suppose that the community wishes to move Bartre into top tier. Raven is better than Bartre? No, because contributions in the first 4 chapters of the game outweigh all other contributions. Why? Because we want Bartre to be top tier. But wouldn't this make Dorcas top tier as well? No, because he's an exception to the rule. Why? Because we, the people, say so. Etc. You will disagree, but this is in fact very similar to the situation here. Nino is better than Pent? No, because the action she takes to acquire 28x is a "storyline event," and storyline events don't count. Why? Because we want Nino to be low tier. You can substitute whatever rationalizations you want to in there, but it seems obvious that "Because we want Nino to be low tier" is the real reason behind whatever justifications you can dig up for it.

The whole blocking ideas we don't like simply because we don't like them. Using force of presence to block changes. That kind of thing. I was leading into a "this change isn't happening so get over it" type of statement, so figured it was appropriate to at least acknowledge that my coming statements may be a decent example of some of the things you say about the SF community.

Well yes, you have pretty much proven me right. I do have to ask: why? Why are people so concerned with maintaining their opinions; even to the point of overriding relevant logic or facts in order to assert their personal feelings as the valid viewpoint? I honestly don't understand this mentality. You claim that you are not being inconsistent, but even if this is true, it really doesn't matter. The fact of the issue is that, as you pointed out, GE's argument would be rejected even if no logical counter-argument to it could be found. It seems clear to me that, if it came down to it, the community would just do the thing where everyone stops responding to him and nothing is ever changed as a result of his posts.

For example, look at Life's responses here.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if 28x was necessary for the S Rank. Not if it was desired. Since you claimed that you are "worse off" without it rather than "absolutely screwed", you basically summed up my feelings of Nino.

Yeah she can help but she's not vital. So your initial claim of Nino > Pent automatically gets screwed right up the ass with a wooden rubber spoon.

This is incredibly bad logic, and this should be extremely obvious, especially to someone like Life who I know isn't an idiot. "28x is not necessary to S Rank" --> "your claim of Nino > Pent automatically get screwed right up the ass with a wooden rubber spoon." Nothing is necessary to S Rank except for Hector to seize or w/e, so following this line of reasoning, everything is bottom tier. Why does he feel the need to continue putting forward arguments which he must know are extremely poor in order to defend the status quo? I don't understand why people want to scrape the bottom of the barrel in hopes of finding something, anything, that can disarm GE, rather than simply get over it and accept his argument. This is a clear demonstration of bias if I've ever seen one, and people seem to be totally okay with it.

Likewise, look at Red Fox's response to the topic.

But honestly, it feels like you're just trying to be a pain right now. Is it so hard to accept that not everything will be 100% consistent based on the fact that everyone looks at the game in a different way?

Extra shit aside, I don't know why you can't seem to live with just a little bit of inconsistency since it's going to exist in any tier list setting if you look hard enough.

She asks if people can just get over the inconsistency, but the better question is, why can't she live with a little more consistency in the list? And why is it that she expects others to live with a little bit of inconsistency when it suits her feelings on the matter? Why should she not be the one who has to live with it when her personal feelings clash with the facts?

I simply don't get it. Anyways, all of this obviously being the case, I return to my original request: If you are going to do this, then please simply acknowledge the tier list's largely subjective nature and stop pretending that any of you are making much of an effort to be objective. Again:

Why not institutionalize this process of maintaining the status quo? Simply create a provision in the OP which states: "Take note that your argument is subject to being arbitrarily discarded at any point, and for no particular reason, if we don't like it." Then people who are interested in discussion that at least tries to be objective or open-ended would not have to waste time posting in the topic, and when unconventional arguments are posed, the matter could be settled immediately. You could simply point the "complainer" to this rule in the OP and then ignore him. It would be far more efficient than the current system.

You should all find this proposal to be very agreeable, as it will make discussions like this one entirely unnecessary in the future, and undesirable posters can be easily removed with a single response, allowing you to continue arguing the important things unimpeded. It's also not fair to those who want to talk about things objectively, to come into a topic like this and suddenly find themselves up against a wall of irrational stubbornness, without any warning whatsoever. They deserve to be informed that their viewpoints will not necessarily be considered even if they are objectively valid; the current system is simply an unfair deception of these people. With my proposed provision introduced to the OP, new posters would be fairly informed about the nature of the tier list, and would not have to bother posting in it to begin with. It's a win-win situation for everyone, and all I ask is that something like this be done.

I also notice that almost everything else I've said so far has been ignored, but I guess that should come as no surprise.

Edited March 27, 2010 by CATS