This argument is really just becoming centered on the logical fallacies in your stubborn argument rather than the thread, which most people already disagree with as the poll shows.
And just for a second I thought you were an intelligent person. My bad.
You choose to completely ignore my point about subjective theory, so ill assume that you agree
Whatever this "theory" is you didnt explain it as you should have, stating only that "every subjective argument holds merit". I replied to that in last paragraph of my previous post. I brought up "potential" because it was majority of those "subjective arguments" you were suggesting I should consider.
As for top players, its retarded to think a someone like fox places top consistently simply because the odds are stacked in his favor. It is certainly a factor in their success but its majorly due to such an elite level of skill
*sigh* Let me simply point out, that since mechanisms of determining skill (or capacity of being top player) is not only the very same, but also simultaneous to process of defining character strength (You've guessed it - tournament results). So we can pretty much safely rule it out when discussing tiers/character viability. Of course like any research there is deviation, but I am not about to explain such basics to you, let your teachers handle it.
f I can't "seriously" make these statements, which are really just pointing out flaws in your argument, because I didn't specify parameters then the same applies to you and this dumbass thread.
Well, wrong again. I was following general approach to the subject while you were making statements that closely echoe "tournament results dont matter" just made a little more intricately.
So to quote your opinion
The fact of the matter is that tournament results have too small a scope to determine the entirety of a characters viability, making them actually pretty unreliable
I didnt blow you up b/c I didnt want any conflict/derailing, but since you insist:
Most majors have more people than minimum requirement for your average opinion poll. Even more so, majors gather WAY bigger audience % (total players overall comapred to players entering tournaments) than amounts most sociology research are based on (in % value). So we can actually assume tournament results are INCREDIBLY informative. Even if there were 100 000 people tournament I can assure you there will still be a lot of Tempest KL at the upper side of bracket. Actually at a bigger scale of things there will be much less "random" chrarcters up there, which we have to consider on smaller scale.
After all this please withhold from any more atacks on credibility of tournament results, unless you have a better method (hint: you dont)