if you genuinely believe that nothing will change, why are you here in this thread arguing not to ban it? clearly you think something will change or else you wouldn't care one way or the other. why are you wasting your time here?
just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad or inaccurate
do you understand how many things gliscor is invalidating on its own? it's steadily pushing every other spikes user out of the tier because of how fucking good it is at being one. "keeping as much things viable" would require a ban of gliscor
if you actually don't think gliscor is a problem after all the arguments presented in this thread, i don't think i can do anything to change your mind. at this point you're just ignoring the truth on purpose and the best i can do is discourage you from throwing your time away trying to get reqs so you can at least save yourself the embarrassment of forever being known as a gliscor apologist, like how bludgeoning angel has to forever carry the shame of being one of the five people who voted dnb on bloodmoon. the damn thing got a 3.99 on the survey among qualified voters, we all know where this suspect is headed
Alright, I don't know what got into your head while making this, but let me just say something about pretty much your entire post.
if you genuinely believe that nothing will change, why are you here in this thread arguing not to ban it? clearly you think something will change or else you wouldn't care one way or the other. why are you wasting your time here?
Because that's what a suspect thread is for???
just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad or inaccurate
Uh, no, I get the analogy, it just sucks in the context because you're trying to equivocate the ban of Gliscor to "getting off the nail of beds" while I am arguing that it really isn't.
do you understand how many things gliscor is invalidating on its own? it's steadily pushing every other spikes user out of the tier because of how fucking good it is at being one. "keeping as much things viable" would require a ban of gliscor
Probably one of the only meaningful things coming out of this post, but Samurott-H, Ting-Lu, Glimmora, Greninja, etc. are still plenty viable, it's just that now there is a contender for spikes. As the sample size of spikers increases overall, all the other spikers are bound to get less usage; that's just basic math. Let's say I had 1 viable hazard setter and 1 more hazard setter of equal viability gets added, I can expect that the other hazard setter's usage reduces by half. This isn't a bad thing, it isn't hurting its viability, but it IS adding to the variety of options. Ting-Lu is still good for sure, it isn't totally outclassed by any means, for the record.
if you actually don't think gliscor is a problem after all the arguments presented in this thread, i don't think i can do anything to change your mind. at this point you're just ignoring the truth on purpose and the best i can do is discourage you from throwing your time away trying to get reqs so you can at least save yourself the embarrassment of forever being known as a gliscor apologist, like how bludgeoning angel has to forever carry the shame of being one of the five people who voted dnb on bloodmoon. the damn thing got a 3.99 on the survey among qualified voters, we all know where this suspect is headed
I gave you my arguments, but you neglect them without even actually bothering to disprove any of my arguments other than a weird analogy. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being in the minority of the argument. In fact, let me show you something that should change your attitude:
Yes, this is OU chat we are talking about, but the point is that I'm really not in the boat of "5 people voting do not ban" and there are still plenty of people good enough to get reqs in there. Nobody is going to flame/shame me for my do not ban decision aside from you. In fact, nobody even cares that Bludgeoning Angel voted do not ban on Ursaluna Bloodmoon. Who actively documents and remembers what random people vote on suspect tests? I guarantee that you are pretty much the only person that "forever knows" Bludgeoning Angel as a "Bloodmoon apologist." Please, if this is something that you actively do by shaming people for what they vote despite their arguments, get your own reqs? Actually argue against their arguments instead of shaming other people? And for the record, I have a week to get reqs; I've done reqs in 2 hours and 3 hours before, so I'll do it again. I even have a head start and effectively just need 10 wins, so that'll cut out a ton of time. I encourage you to do the same and get reqs, as what really matters is you getting reqs and not just trying to shoo away the do not ban arguments. Also, what do you mean ignoring "the truth?" You're the one that straight up doesn't even care about any of the arguments I provide really, because if you did, you would see that I actually do take common ideas into mind when sharing why I am voting do not ban.
By the way, I am not intending to have a full-blown argument or shame anyone, but please just stick to Gliscor and actually consider all the do not ban arguments properly if you want to make a solid case. Also, before you say that you actually do read my posts and consider them properly, let's check this out:
You didn't even bother to read on at this point. If you had read on, you would have realized that I didn't even really talk about Gholdengo to begin with.
I respect the ban arguments, I really do. I respect what people like Srn and Finchinator have to say, but I also trust people like Highv0ltag3. I trust people like SupaGmoney; they know their stuff and are voting do not ban on Gliscor. And, more importantly, I think I have played enough high ladder games to get a good grasp of the metagame with Gliscor. I have played teams that both use Gliscor and do not use Gliscor. This is WHY I am arguing that Gliscor should not be banned.