Originally Posted by
Reddish Mage
I have not heard them say they arbitrarily pick winners and use analysis to justify the results. They claim the opposite. They do the research, pick the winner the research indicates is the strongest and if the result pisses off people then too bad.
They are not doing a popularity contest, they are not just randomly picking winners. They are making a good faith attempt to pick the winner based on analysis, but it is a free-wheeling analysis that lacks consistent methodology.
There are problems, or at least questions with these analyses. Sure Link vs Cloud they gave Link all his tools in multiple games, yet Cloud only received his “iconic” abilities and an extra artifact or two, when he, or any other FF character, can basically be customized to the fight.
Its one thing to say that writers lack consistency, or even a methodology, and that they get things wrong. However, it’s quite another to say they are doing things in bad faith and ignore their own analysis because they wish to anger the fans.
I see a lot of flaws and inconsistencies with their analysis, but I see that all the time with judgments being made in real life when there’s a lack of bright-line tests and strict methods are not applied to all aspects of including, sorting, and analyzing data.
Your accusation is the equivalent of saying the judges are prejudiced and are engaged in tampering with evidence. That accusation has a high bar against an actual judge. What substantiates that accusation?
The fact that they ignore some things said on their forums isn’t enough, or Wikipedia. There is no rule they include certain data (and a lot of people refuse to use Wikipedia in research). I also note that these are active areas and data from forums and Wikipedia arises often well after they do their research.
The fact that they seem to cherry pick their data isn’t enough. The fact that they are wrong even in fairly transparent ways isn’t enough (i.e. the hollow moon). Ignoring really blindingly obvious facts (i.e. ruling Superman is a weakling) and exceptionally tortured analysis (deciding Scrooge McDuck isn’t as wealthy Peter Parker), is the sort of facts that help.
What you would really need to substantiate bias and corruption could be actual statements by DB people indicating their prejudice or evidence tampering, or other evidence that play specifically to corruption and prejudged outcomes.
In the absence of indications of a payout, or an admission they decided a battle with a coin-toss and then fit the story around it, there really isn’t the evidence to sustain these sorts of accusations.