Ok, I'll repeat it for the 100000th time.
Tier lists should be made based around the amount of good and bad match ups each character has. Not about "how you feel this character is based on some matches here and there". After
years and years of playing a fighting game, you can kinda have a feeling of how a character fares against another character using all his tools, playing it at the best possible level, being/against someone who knows that character from tip to toes, and then you set a number.
Once you have those numbers, then you see how well it stacks next to other characters. For example, let's compare Green Arrow and Aquaman. Let's say (not that it is this way, this is just an example), that Green Arrow has 15 bad match ups, and Aquaman has 3. Then you can say that Aquaman is higher in the tier list.
The point of the "Has Faults" and "Well Rounded" parts of the charts, is to say that despite the issues or holes the character has, he still has a tool(s) that help him/her win match ups.
Whatever lists people make will never be correct because:
a) The game is too young. A year is NOTHING in these type of games, and
b) Most people who make the lists don't play ALL the characters, don't know their holes or match up numbers. Most people don't even play offline at a high level (not that you need to but it helps making an informed decision).
Tier lists should be a community effort, but there's an overwhelming amount of (ignorant) people who instead of analyzing a list objectively, they just see a thread and think "well my character loses/beats to that character so he/she's OBVIOUSLY not good/bad". That's totally not the way to go, and that's why these threads lead to nowhere.
Sorry for the quality, I just recorded this with the ipad:
Please also note, saying anything Super with Green Arrow is the same as saying "Kano is not bad because his X-Ray is great".
Grundy is good.