Misused: No Except Yes

Olaf: Do you know what this is?
Klaus: It looks like a list.
Olaf: WRONG! It's a list.

First he says that it isn't a list. Then he says it is. That's textbook By "No", I Mean "Yes".

edited 14th Feb '17 5:32:32 AM by Gosicrystal

Okay, I think I now understand the Smogon example. It says that, in the Ubers tier (a battle mode of sorts of online Pokémon), no Pokémon can be banned because they are ridiculously strong and overpowered in the first place. But then it turns out that certain mons can be banned if they're mega-super-ultra-impossibly-over-the-top strong and broken, which is why they changed the mode's rules.

The closest thing I can label this as is By "No", I Mean "Yes" (no Pokémon can be banned, but some can). Or maybe it's too far-fetched?

If that's what the example means — "In Uber tier, no Pokemon can be banned, but there are a few pokemon that are banned even from Uber tier" then it's exactly By "No", I Mean "Yes".

Unless what it is saying is "Uber tier was the highest level tourney tier, and no pokemon were banned from it for being too powerful, but then they found a couple that could still break even that tier so they banned them from Uber and created a new, even higher tier where there really are none that are banned. " In which case it's more of a straight-up rules change, not this trope.

OK, I removed the Smogon example, as it simply looks to be a change in the rules. The Related To page says there still is a wick left, but it isn't showing. What.

Any word on this? The dewick would be completed if it weren't for that weird non-existent wick.

Resolved the last bit of wicks. Will move the discussions over, note the rename, and close.