Originally Posted by
Buufreak
Would you be kind enough to cite that? I just reread the definitions, as well as the over arching purpose and explanation of the tiers, and I didn't find anything that says being the top of class in a tier group necessitates being in the next higher tier. Because, let's be honest, that thought pattern is cyclical and backward, don't you think? If something is at the top of its class, which justifies moving up, then it is now at the bottom of the next. Meanwhile, what was once second dog is now the top, which means it then, too, gets to move up. See the problem?