The reason why many debates over rankings and tier lists become convoluted and aggressive is because people lack the importance of perspective. This may seem like a basic sense of obvious decency, but the meaning should be elaborated.

What makes a tier list or any ranking good or bad is not based on a specific placement. If your method of judging a tier list is based on whether a certain unit ranks at a specific tier, your judgement is flawed.

The first thing you should ask yourself when viewing a tier list is this question: "What is the criteria?" or "What is the methodology?"

If you do not have a criteria, then there is no basis on which the tier list can be judged upon. If the provider does not give any meaningful criteria or methodology, then the tier list is meaningless since nothing can be argued upon.

This is why I created an extensive methodology for my tier list. This is the only way.

Contradictions

Once you know what the criteria of a ranking is, then your next goal is to search for contradictions. This is the element that truly determines whether a tier list you're viewing is good or bad.

A tier list must have a defined criteria. But if the tier list does not follow its criteria by making biased placements that contradict each other (such as multiple similar units being ranked at different ends of a tier list) then there is almost certainly a problem unless the methodology is wired for such scenarios to happen.

Short Analogy

The tier list is the game.

The methodology is the rules.

If you do not know the rules of the game, you cannot play.