UU Tier Discussion Request Thread

[BurntZebra]

I was definitely one of those people calling Chansey cancer, but you have protocol in place to assess something and that protocol should have been followed with a decision being made a long, long time ago. Nevertheless, that's not here nor there. 

 

The matter of a Vaporeon quick-ban comes down to the chronic problem of the tier council having an easier time banning offensive threats rather than defensive threats. What qualifies a defensive uber? Well something that counters or checks the majority of the tier. With its speed, access to Wish + Protect, incredible defensive bulk, and ability as a cleric, Vaporeon easily fits the defensive uber characteristic in UU. The only outright answers to Vaporeon in UU are Manectric (can't OHKO), Ampharos (gets warn down by spikes and Surf), and I guess maybe special def Vileplume since Vap's high special attack really hurts Vileplume with Ice Beam

 

0 SpA Vaporeon Ice Beam vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Vileplume: 86-102 (47.2 - 56%) -- 17.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery

 

Idk, you guys can do what you want I guess. Is there even a set in stone cycle to make updates on usage in game, or did you notice that Vap and Umbreon both could get moved down at this point in time so  you said, ok lets do it now?

Rushing the tiering process isn't always a good thing. Look at what happened in UU a while ago. Umbreon, slowking, and scizor were all banned very quickly without much discussion and without much time between bans. I'm glad all of the tier council was able to agree on not banning chansey, even if it took longer to convince others of it. 

 

Here's the thing, vaporeon doesn't even have great bulk. It's physical defense is pretty lackluster even when investing into hp+def and a bold nature. Breloom, donphan, zangoose, granbull, swellow, kangaskhan, and hitmonlee can all 2hko vaporeon. Then crawdaunt, zangoose, absol, and cradily can set up on the switch and beat vaporeon too. 

 

90% of the time, Vaporeon will not be able to act as an effective cleric. First, even you have proven that vaporeon will be running ice beam along with wish+protect, and surf is pretty clear as a 4th move, meaning there is no room for heal bell. Next, by the time vaporeon comes in vs something that it doesn't just lose to, it'll have to heal to full hp with wish+protect, meaning it can't pass a wish as long as the other person switches to another pokemon vs vaporeon. Status is too common for vaporeon to switch in vs defensive pokemon like steelix or kangaskhan or quagsire. So all vaporeon needs to do to be an effective cleric is hope that a person doesn't run any offensive pokemon or any defensive pokemon that don't have a status move. Hm... That seems likely. 

[DoubleJ]

=)

 

I mean I get it. You finally have an answer to Sneasel to help protect your defensive core, so turning a blind eye to how effective Wish passing is from a bulky monster like Vap makes sense. It's ok Zeb, enjoy your new meta. 

[KingBowser]

Damn, should have been running these mons(donphan, zangoose, granbull, swellow, kangaskhan, hitmonlee) in 2014, when vap was shitting all over the OU tier. But times have change and it will only bring the best for UU.

[BurntZebra]

I mean I get it. You finally have an answer to Sneasel to help protect your defensive core, so turning a blind eye to how effective Wish passing is from a bulky monster like Vap makes sense. It's ok Zeb, enjoy your new meta. 

I mean sneasel can beat vaporeon with a timely flinch too. I'm also not saying that vaporeon will never be banned, because it is definitely possible.

 

Damn, should have been running these mons(donphan, zangoose, granbull, swellow, kangaskhan, hitmonlee) in 2014, when vap was shitting all over the OU tier. But times have change and it will only bring the best for UU.

Well 2014 was a different time. No physical/special split. No choice band. No hoenn pokemon. 

[KingBowser]

I mean sneasel can beat vaporeon with a timely flinch too. I'm also not saying that vaporeon will never be banned, because it is definitely possible.

 

Well 2014 was a different time. No physical/special split. No choice band. No hoenn pokemon. 

Pretty sure there was CB, as vap walled the Aeros and DNites.

[ShadowGary]

Rushing the tiering process isn't always a good thing. Look at what happened in UU a while ago. Umbreon, slowking, and scizor were all banned very quickly without much discussion and without much time between bans. 

Implying this wasn't rushed, lol, good one fam.

[OrangeManiac]

It's kinda hard topic. Honestly, it isn't such an insane loss to have a tournament or two and find if something we consider is OP is actually OP. If it is then ban it and move along without second guessing ourselves. So honestly might as well. I do understand Vaporeon raises concerns: Everyone who knows about the meta will acknowledge it's a really great mon and combining that with UU already has had some issues of stagnation of the metagame and that comes from the defensive threats of the tier. Adding Vape and Umbreon in the mix most certainly don't help the issue.

 

But honestly, does testing some tournaments really hurt... I don't think so. We could easily evaluate the metagame thoroughly and think whether the Pokemon we consider possible "cancers" of the metagame are exactly the problems of the metagame. New tiers always look a bit messy but it's just how it works I guess.

Edited March 19, 2016 by OrangeManiac

[NikhilR]

But honestly, does testing some tournaments really hurt... I don't think so. We could easily evaluate the metagame thoroughly and think whether the Pokemon we consider possible "cancers" of the metagame are exactly the problems of the metagame. New tiers always look a bit messy but it's just how it works I guess.

 

Tbh, as much as I know that as much as this hurts the community -  me, gb and several others don't have the motivation to play UU with vapo+umb around. As it is we were adjusting to UU changing and with enough stall with Kanga around. Now bringing down Vapo changes a lot of things. It was covered in our discussion that Vapo fits qualities of offense / defense / support and as I recall the votes were 5:1. That meant that Vapo WAS going to be banned to BL, and that's what gbwead and I assumed. 

 

I just wish Tyrone or anyone from the council had given us prior notice about this because then I would've pushed for a discussion thread within the community. I had talked to overtoasted a few days and he begged me to not bring Vapo to UU. I know toast doesn't represent the entire community, but I didn't feel the need for a discussion thread to be created because I assumed banning it straight to BL is what the community wanted in the first place. This isn't supposed to be a me vs the council or anything but just that there was a lack of proper communication which led to this situation. 

 

Before we get started off with the discussion thread, determining Vapo's position in the tier is gonna take more than 1 tournament imo because it's not something you can easily just classify under a characteristic because you won't see every Vapo sweeping through, walling or maybe even supporting. I'm interested in knowing how all those who agreed for Vapo to be tested will base their decision. 

[OrangeManiac]

Tbh, as much as I know that as much as this hurts the community -  me, gb and several others don't have the motivation to play UU with vapo+umb around. As it is we were adjusting to UU changing and with enough stall with Kanga around. Now bringing down Vapo changes a lot of things. It was covered in our discussion that Vapo fits qualities of offense / defense / support and as I recall the votes were 5:1. That meant that Vapo WAS going to be banned to BL, and that's what gbwead and I assumed. 

 

I just wish Tyrone or anyone from the council had given us prior notice about this because then I would've pushed for a discussion thread within the community. I had talked to overtoasted a few days and he begged me to not bring Vapo to UU. I know toast doesn't represent the entire community, but I didn't feel the need for a discussion thread to be created because I assumed banning it straight to BL is what the community wanted in the first place. This isn't supposed to be a me vs the council or anything but just that there was a lack of proper communication which led to this situation. 

 

Before we get started off with the discussion thread, determining Vapo's position in the tier is gonna take more than 1 tournament imo because it's not something you can easily just classify under a characteristic because you won't see every Vapo sweeping through, walling or maybe even supporting. I'm interested in knowing how all those who agreed for Vapo to be tested will base their decision. 

 

No man, I get what you mean. I honestly see the reasons and I'll admit.. I could have motivation issues to play that metagame as well. So in that way, what's the purpose. I know we're supposed to follow tier policies and stuff but they are there to create an enjoyable metagame. If it appears as that pretty much all players want a Pokemon gone there honestly shouldn't be that much of hesitation to get rid of it. We're supposed to have a fun and enjoyable metagame for us to play. Tiering policies are there to avoid a complete chaos and have some sort of a philosophy behind our competitive experience.

 

Let's still note that this whole thread does not represent the whole community right now. I think Vape thread would be cool to open, see how people feel about it and hear their legitimate arguments and see what we do.

[YettoDie]

How about not use tiering based on usage but go back to what we had before Hoenn started, that metagame wasn't as broken or fucked up as this one is right now.

[Gunthug]

How about not use tiering based on usage but go back to what we had before Hoenn started, that metagame wasn't as broken or fucked up as this one is right now.

sure, let's reverse the physical/special split too and take away hoenn pokes like metagross, blaziken, cradily etc. Why move forwards when we can move backwards?

[Havsha]

How about not use tiering based on usage but go back to what we had before Hoenn started, that metagame wasn't as broken or fucked up as this one is right now.

 

 

sure, let's reverse the physical/special split too and take away hoenn pokes like metagross, blaziken, cradily etc. Why move forwards when we can move backwards?

I don't think that he's saying use the old tiers, but rather base it factors other than usage

[Gunthug]

I don't think that he's saying use the old tiers, but rather base it factors other than usage

I know what he's saying, but his reasoning for saying that is flat out terrible. Saying you want power-based tiering back instead of usage-based tiering because "the old meta was better" is ignoring all the things that changed the meta - new pokes, phys/special split, etc. It's a correlation doesnt equal causation thing

 

 

Also, I think it's ironic that some of you support the shift back to power-based tiering, which would give the tier council far more discretion and power, and yet have spoken out against the council vehemently

Edited March 19, 2016 by Gunthug

[LionKIng]

sure, let's reverse the physical/special split too and take away hoenn pokes like metagross, blaziken, cradily etc. Why move forwards when we can move backwards?

Thats not whas hes saying, but with the skeleton of tiers we already have in place, why move down and up pokes every other month based on usage that can be biased. Its been a year and its the first time armaldo is UU. Just because some players started using it as a niche poke and everyone band waggoned it. If it wasnt UU for a whole year, why should it get moved now? like come on, we can use our common sens at this point and go back to how it was, with the theorymon and all that. I think tiering by usage did the maximum it could have done for us, its time to take him behind the barn and shoot it. Because after the skeleton of the tiers has been made, tiering by usage has only done worse and worse, with little to no benefits. We don't have the player base nor the mechanics to be using tiering by usage. Counter teaming is a huge factor in this game, and yes sometimes you gotta use niche pokes to counter a certain type of defensive core, does that mean they are in that specific tier? if you ask me no, but hey, ive been saying this since it came out. How can a poke be moved from lower than NU to OU , while haivng 0% usage or close to that in NU and UU. like come on. This needs to stop and everyone needs to open their eyes on how this tiering by usage that senile wanted to implement to copy showdown isnt working at all for such a small scale. We are in our own lane, why copy what other games do? Thats all for me, I won'T even get into how easy it is to get a poke banned from a tier other than OU.

Edited March 19, 2016 by LionKIng

[Gunthug]

Thats not whas hes saying, but with the skeleton of tiers we already have in place, why move down and up pokes every other month based on usage that can be biased.

 

This would be completely unprecedented, and we'd be doing it simply because "I dunno, it might make things better." That's not a very solid reason to upend what has become the golden standard for tiering across every single pokemon competitive metagame

 

Its been a year and its the first time armaldo is UU. Just because some players started using it as a niche poke and everyone band waggoned it. If it wasnt UU for a whole year, why should it get moved now?

 

Glossing over your unsupported assertion about armaldo and bandwagoning, this illustrates that metagames are constantly changing - which is a good thing. No meta should be stagnant, and when something like armaldo becomes useful enough to hit the UU usage cutoff, it moves up. To keep it in NU even though it's being used enough to be considered UU defeats the entire purpose of tiers - to give pokemon that aren't being used in higher tiers a chance to shine (if they aren't too strong for the tier they're in)

 

like come on, we can use our common sens at this point and go back to how it was, with the theorymon and all that. I think tiering by usage did the maximum it could have done for us, its time to take him behind the barn and shoot it. Because after the skeleton of the tiers has been made, tiering by usage has only done worse and worse, with little to no benefits.

 

You'll need to provide a lot more support for this blanket statement. Why do you think it's done the maximum it could have done for us? What do you consider a benefit?

 

We don't have the player base nor the mechanics to be using tiering by usage.

 

As Ive said before, I think an argument could be made here that our small size could mean that the cutoff % is too low, but youve yet to make that argument. INstead, youre asking for an archaic system to be reintroduced because "we're special." Guess what, some showdown tiers may even have an arguably smaller presence than we do (PU, for example), and they still use usage based tiering. Why? Because it just makes sense, it's how tiering is supposed to be done. That's why the tiers are named Overused, Underused, Neverused, etc.

 

 

Counter teaming is a huge factor in this game, and yes sometimes you gotta use niche pokes to counter a certain type of defensive core, does that mean they are in that specific tier? if you ask me no, but hey, ive been saying this since it came out. How can a poke be moved from lower than NU to OU , while haivng 0% usage or close to that in NU and UU. like come on.

 

Trapinch isn't the first pokemon to be more useful in higher tiers than in lower tiers. This happens a lot with trapping pokemon, especially (reminds me of magneton before the split) and it's hardly a reason to upend the entire structure of tiering.

 

We are in our own lane, why copy what other games do?

 

Because it works

[DoubleJ]

Maybe it's time to set some real rules behind the usage updates that are made public, and maybe even reconsider the math behind the usage cutoff.

 

My suggestions:

1. Update usage every three months, regardless of the number of tournaments in each of the individual tiers
2. Propose a "quick ban" vote on any pokemon that moves from a higher tier to a lower tier (if the tier council would rather it be tested, then the vote should show that). 
3. Restructure and increase the usage cutoff value, currently it only takes one pokemon to be used 5-10x per month for it to be moved up (that's not much)

All I ask for is more structure in tiering. Currently it just seems like a lot of disorder and "I'm going to do this because I want to" kind of stuff. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by DoubleJ

[LionKIng]

 

Thats not whas hes saying, but with the skeleton of tiers we already have in place, why move down and up pokes every other month based on usage that can be biased.

 

This would be completely unprecedented, and we'd be doing it simply because "I dunno, it might make things better." That's not a very solid reason to upend what has become the golden standard for tiering across every single pokemon competitive metagame

 

Its been a year and its the first time armaldo is UU. Just because some players started using it as a niche poke and everyone band waggoned it. If it wasnt UU for a whole year, why should it get moved now?

 

Glossing over your unsupported assertion about armaldo and bandwagoning, this illustrates that metagames are constantly changing - which is a good thing. No meta should be stagnant, and when something like armaldo becomes useful enough to hit the UU usage cutoff, it moves up. To keep it in NU even though it's being used enough to be considered UU defeats the entire purpose of tiers - to give pokemon that aren't being used in higher tiers a chance to shine (if they aren't too strong for the tier they're in)

 

like come on, we can use our common sens at this point and go back to how it was, with the theorymon and all that. I think tiering by usage did the maximum it could have done for us, its time to take him behind the barn and shoot it. Because after the skeleton of the tiers has been made, tiering by usage has only done worse and worse, with little to no benefits.

 

You'll need to provide a lot more support for this blanket statement. Why do you think it's done the maximum it could have done for us? What do you consider a benefit?

 

We don't have the player base nor the mechanics to be using tiering by usage.

 

As Ive said before, I think an argument could be made here that our small size could mean that the cutoff % is too low, but youve yet to make that argument. INstead, youre asking for an archaic system to be reintroduced because "we're special." Guess what, some showdown tiers may even have an arguably smaller presence than we do (PU, for example), and they still use usage based tiering. Why? Because it just makes sense, it's how tiering is supposed to be done. That's why the tiers are named Overused, Underused, Neverused, etc.

 

 

Counter teaming is a huge factor in this game, and yes sometimes you gotta use niche pokes to counter a certain type of defensive core, does that mean they are in that specific tier? if you ask me no, but hey, ive been saying this since it came out. How can a poke be moved from lower than NU to OU , while haivng 0% usage or close to that in NU and UU. like come on.

 

Trapinch isn't the first pokemon to be more useful in higher tiers than in lower tiers. This happens a lot with trapping pokemon, especially (reminds me of magneton before the split) and it's hardly a reason to upend the entire structure of tiering.

 

We are in our own lane, why copy what other games do?

 

Because it works

 

we've already talked about this alot ingame, and I did give you the argument to increase cuttoff point, but even then it wouldnt be enough. I have no idea on how fixing the problem of tiering by usage.

 

And benefits? I don't see any besides makingg the skeletons for the actual tiers and then form there going theorymon, and the disaster that happened a couple months back when alot of stuff got dumped into UU and we still have repercusions even today. 

 

and having a constant HUGE meta change every other month is bad , we are an mmo with a very limited number of comp players, Its really hard to addapt every other month and rebreed a whole tier because stuff you had isnt good anymore or breed stuff you didnt have because they now counter 1 specific pokemon that has been moved down. Thats all im saying, theres too many changes for a mechanic that takes for ever to get from point A to point B. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by LionKIng

[Gunthug]

we've already talked about this alot ingame, and I did give you the argument to increase cuttoff point, but even then it wouldnt be enough. I have no idea on how fixing the problem of tiering by usage.

 

And benefits? I don't see any besides makingg the skeletons for the actual tiers and then form there going theorymon, and the disaster that happened a couple months back when alot of stuff got dumped into UU and we still have repercusions even today. 

I don't think there is a problem to tiering by usage. What I like about it is that any discrepancies that might arise can be dealt with by the tier council before they manifest into problems. IE: When blaziken and medicham fell below OU usage, they were quick-banned after a discussion and before they could wreak havoc on UU.

 

The "great UU drop down" has been referenced several times today (even once quite hilariously referred to as "fascist" by JJ, who in the old Umbreon thread actually suggested dropping zam down to help balance it). I'll agree that was a very unwise decision, but it was the product of power based tiering - another reason the usage based structure works and should remain

[Havsha]

I don't think there is a problem to tiering by usage. What I like about it is that any discrepancies that might arise can be dealt with by the tier council before they manifest into problems. IE: When blaziken and medicham fell below OU usage, they were quick-banned after a discussion and before they could wreak havoc on UU.

 

The "great UU drop down" has been referenced several times today (even once quite hilariously referred to as "fascist" by JJ, who in the old Umbreon thread actually suggested dropping zam down to help balance it). I'll agree that was a very unwise decision, but it was the product of power based tiering - another reason the usage based structure works and should remain

I highly doubt that they were place into UU because they did not have the stats for OU, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

[Gunthug]

I highly doubt that they were place into UU because they did not have the stats for OU, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

It's easy to misunderstand, since those 6 pokemon have had a very confusing journey throughout the life of our meta. Basically though, they were below the OU cutoff so they went UU, then each of them was banned to BL (Scizor, slowking, umbreon, machamp, alakazam, and charizard). That's how Usage tiering should work - if something comes down that is too strong, it goes to BL.

 

HOWEVER, they were then un-banned from BL to UU. That's not a usage based move, that was strictly a power based move made by the discretion of the council to try to help the tier out (and, in some cases, because they didn't feel the pokemon had a fair chance their first time around). In hindsight, it was a mistake (especially machamp zam and zard), but you certainly can't blame usage based tiering for it

[LionKIng]

It's easy to misunderstand, since those 6 pokemon have had a very confusing journey throughout the life of our meta. Basically though, they were below the OU cutoff so they went UU, then each of them was banned to BL (Scizor, slowking, umbreon, machamp, alakazam, and charizard). That's how Usage tiering should work - if something comes down that is too strong, it goes to BL.

 

HOWEVER, they were then un-banned from BL to UU. That's not a usage based move, that was strictly a power based move made by the discretion of the council to try to help the tier out (and, in some cases, because they didn't feel the pokemon had a fair chance their first time around). In hindsight, it was a mistake (especially machamp zam and zard), but you certainly can't blame usage based tiering for it

What I don't undestand is , why tiering by usage just works 1 way and not 2 ways. Alot of pokemon are not UU because they are deemed too op without even trying them all at once. IMO the big 8 that came down wasnt broken, since everything was broken, but everyone wanted them gone because it wasnt what they wanted for a UU tier. Can't really blame them, it was so different from what we used to have. But yeah, the tiering by usage just works 1 way. Stuff goes up all the time and no one cares, but when stuff goes down then its a neveer ending drama. I don't really care if its based by usage or if its based by theorymon. But don't theorymon stuff thats going down and usage stuff thats going up. We need a fair system that isnt biased and isnt affected by the decision or the opinion of a single person. I don't care how we achieve it, im saying we go back to the old system we had, wich is theorymon stuff. You may not agree with me, but tahts my solution to the problem. What is yours? I see you destroy every argument I give without proposing an idea yourself. Lets hear you gunthug, whats your idea to the tiering issue, and don't tell me theres none because theres a bujnch and we've talked about them. 

[Gunthug]

What I don't undestand is , why tiering by usage just works 1 way and not 2 ways. Alot of pokemon are not UU because they are deemed too op without even trying them all at once. IMO the big 8 that came down wasnt broken, since everything was broken, but everyone wanted them gone because it wasnt what they wanted for a UU tier. Can't really blame them, it was so different from what we used to have.

 

Gonna be honest, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. A lot of pokemon aren't UU because they're deemed too OP without even trying them? Afaik the only <4.4% poke that was never tested in UU is slaking.

 

But yeah, the tiering by usage just works 1 way. Stuff goes up all the time and no one cares, but when stuff goes down then its a neveer ending drama.

 

Not really sure how I'm supposed to take this seriously - you say no one cares when stuff goes up, but you were very vocal earlier about trapinch getting moved up. Plus, I don't think I need to explain that a pokemon moving down a tier is a lot more impactful than a pokemon moving up - Armaldo, for example, was already being used in UU (as evidenced by its usage) so there's no need to open a thread or discussion when it gets moved up, since it won't affect UU at all. However, a pokemon like vaporeon coming down, that's a completely new addition to UU and should be discussed thoroughly.

 

I don't really care if its based by usage or if its based by theorymon. But don't theorymon stuff thats going down and usage stuff thats going up. We need a fair system that isnt biased and isnt affected by the decision or the opinion of a single person.

 

I hope I just explained why different standards are used for pokes moving up and pokes moving down. Not sure how this is biased - if you're singling out zebra again, that has no place on this thread or any thread about rational tiering discussion. We're discussing pokemon, not people

 

I don't care how we achieve it, im saying we go back to the old system we had, wich is theorymon stuff. You may not agree with me, but tahts my solution to the problem. What is yours? I see you destroy every argument I give without proposing an idea yourself. Lets hear you gunthug, whats your idea to the tiering issue, and don't tell me theres none because theres a bujnch and we've talked about them. 

 

I certainly don't agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. I will continue to tell you, and the community, why your opinion is fundamentally flawed, though. I don't think there's an issue with usage based tiering in theory - in practice, I think this council has botched the process several times and putting in place procedures to make the whole process easier and smoother would fix that. JJ retierated what I have been saying all day - we need transparent, predictable usage updates, and we need better discussion protocol for when stuff moves down. Again, you'd have a lot more success arguing that the usage cutoff should be raised (as JJ laid out) than to say the entire system should be scrapped

[Viking]

I usualy never take part of your childish argues but here, it's just too much.

 

Firstly i would like to thanks the UU council (sorry i don't even know who you are but not UU players at all :) ) for this amazing decision, i have to recognize you had balls here lol, everyone complains UU is stall / stall & again stall, and what do you bring from OU? 2 fuckin' walls lol.

 

Umby is the special wall, got banned twice (na) because it's like an amazing joke. Wish / healer the fucking good way to stall as hell!

Vap is like umby, but defensive, cya crawdaunt,  well cya everything that isnt breloom. Vap will laugh at your faces and passing wishes from everywhere, ''fingers in the NOOOOOOOOOOSE''.

 

I don't know why you decided this, beccause i didnt read and honestly i just don't care about your reasons. I never agreed that BL / OU come back to UU because it has never worked. The most hilarious is that you have made thing like crobat UU right now, but what he gonna do against these walls?

 

The special sweep is definitivly dead, phisical sweeping also i guess.

 

Ty for reading you can applaud.

 

 

 

(don't try to delete, are we living in a democracy or are you vampires?)

Edited March 21, 2016 by xSparkie
Keep your post(s) appropriate.

[DrCraig]

I usualy never take part of your childish argues but here, it's just too much.

 

Firstly i would like to thanks the UU council (sorry i don't even know who you are but not UU players at all :) ) for this amazing decision, i have to recognize you had balls here lol, everyone complains UU is stall / stall & again stall, and what do you bring from OU? 2 fuckin' walls lol.

 

Umby is the special wall, got banned twice (na) because it's like an amazing joke. Wish / healer the fucking good way to stall as hell!

Vap is like umby, but defensive, cya crawdaunt,  well cya everything that isnt breloom. Vap will laugh at your faces and passing wishes from everywhere, ''fingers in the NOOOOOOOOOOSE''.

 

I don't know why you decided this, beccause i didnt read and honestly i just don't care about your reasons. I never agreed that BL / OU come back to UU because it has never worked. The most hilarious is that you have made thing like crobat UU right now, but what he gonna do against these walls?

 

The special sweep is definitivly dead, phisical sweeping also i guess.

To the goat who did this, i'm gonna rape you and everyone will know it  : ) ( are you zebra a goat or na?)

 

Ty for reading you can applaud.

 

 

 

(don't try to delete, are we living in a democracy or are you vampires?)

It's hilarious that some people blame the Tier Council as if they woke up today and said, "Hey, let's ruin UU."^

 

Orange and Nik made sensible posts you should probably give a read.

[Viking]

It's hilarious that some people blame the Tier Council as if they woke up today and said, "Hey, let's ruin UU."^

 

Orange and Nik made sensible posts you should probably give a read.

who is ruining UU?