i think that the issue here is much wider than can be solved with an "ill help", since most of the analyses, in my opinion, were written carefully and then cleaned up/proofread by primarily Misty, when he went through 90% of them on 7/14, and also people like Haze/Phuq/myself, since we started uploading these. I honestly think that if we "randomly", while eagerly, agree to update and edit the analyses without any real rhyme to our reason, we can end up changing things that were left the way they are intentionally, or edited once or twice or three times to the way they are intentionally. we could end up potentially worsening some of our analyses that have already been combed over several times by suggesting/questioning things that aren't/are in the analyses for a reason, if not "correctly".
of course, i am mainly bringing this up since i hate chaos and will basically oppose him whenever i can! but as far as one of his examples goes, i was in charge of blissey, and here is the word i've had about wish since the very first draft:
"Don't even think about Wish, as its legality is dubious and its use therefore in question on Competitor, and you will virtually never have the opportunity to obtain a legitimate one on Wifi."
this was our general stance on Wish when I wrote this. now, of course, the real question is whether this stance has changed in the last two months. I've heard both that "all natures are possible" and "only calm/modest/rash" are possible. are we just going to allow all natures after all? because that's obviously the reason wish is absent from any actual set, but it's not like i forgot about it. the same may go for lucario, whose "unnecessary" moves may be there for a reason (i havent checked but that isnt the point), but we wont know until we ask the original creator of the lucario analysis.
THEREFORE, i feel that this would work best if we actually follow the example chaos set — probably unintentionally — and actually QUESTION things in the analyses before changing them. this actually will give some purpose to our allowance of everyone with a badge to post in this forum (hardly any of the analyses have been bumped with questions/suggestions since then), and is, in my opinion, the best way to go about this, rather than just changing things that one person may feel is "wrong" with a given analysis.
haha "Post Quick Reply" would you guys believe me if i said i used that 99% of the time =/
