What's the big deal with turn-shaving arguments in tier lists?

[Redwall]

In two sentences, tell me what is being discussed in this topic. Not why it deserves its own topic, I don't want to read a sales pitch. Just what are you talking about, as I can't read 3 pages of posts. It seems like at one point there was talk about Olwen's "easiness tier list" or whatever and now there is talk about how an LTC list should be structured? Why isn't that in the philosophy thread?

The topic offers a definition of saving a turn, in a slightly different way from how most users define the phrase, and presents thought experiments demonstrating the use of turn-shaving as a tier list criterion. I see no need to merge this with the general-philosophy thread since this topic focuses exclusively on the logical consequences of enforcing turn-shaving criteria, whereas the general thread is intended for a wider range of tiering discussion.

[Florete]

I stopped posting, not because my opinion changed, but because not enough people seemed to care and the only ones responding on point were against it. Just to clear that up.

[Irysa]

I think the point of this thread was to specifically discuss a slight re-evaulation of tiering, or rather, a different approach to tiering so that arguments surrounding "turn shaving" would be dismissed less. Arguments about turn shaving are often discredited due to the fact that incredibly powerful units (like Seth) could be shown to save less turns overall than other units or unit combinations (Vanessa rescue drops, etc), but it doesn't make sense to rate the latter over the former. Seth IS better than Vanessa. So instead, this thread has some proposals and outlines being discussed that would allow for bumping units around based on their contribution towards cutting turns, without becoming incomprehensible by the less experienced.

I spent like the last two pages trying to decipher exactly what Redwall meant because his OP is kinda confusing, but I think I get it now.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Irysa

[XeKr]

Also yeah, I'm not saying that this is a "different" kind of tiering. It's just what I've read in from the OP and your discussion around it, and my attempt to make sense of it. It's intuitive and convenient to have a more concise set of rules, as it helps to standardise the format. As I previously said, a structure like that seems like it can apply to more than exclusively LTC as well.

Okay. I think I got caught up in your exact wording (could think of a few nitpicky counterexamples). I agree with you then.

Re: Relevancy: I kinda mentioned this, but the problem is the topic got derailed by (what I would consider "off-topic") philosophy related issues. The original post and discussion regarding its points fit a niche separate from the common (and very broad) discussion in Tiering philosophy.

You could certainly merge the topics, especially since discussion is winding down. However, people not interested in "what's the ultimate purpose of tiering?" or "is it good/bad to have an objective/arbitrary standard" would have to skip around and it'd be all around messier.

Edited September 15, 2013 by XeKr