They are all examples of how we did what was actually necessary in the interests of being the least restrictive, ideals voiced by people like you and Oglemi in this thread. Of course banning an Ability by letter is going to be incomparable in some specific regard, and that's because we've never done it before. This doesn't mean we shouldn't seriously consider it, which, again, is precisely why I titled this thread as such and not "We should suspect/ban Protean and not Greninja"
Well, to be honest, if we weren't giving it serious consideration, then this thread would have probably been locked on the spot lol.
At any rate, we have banned abilities before. That's the thing. This has been an issue in the past with examples like Moody and Sand Veil, but the difference was that those abilities helped to make more than just one Pokemon a problem. Moody could be broken on basically everything if the user got lucky enough, and I've already explained the issues surrounding Sand Veil. Protean does not have the same problem.
Protean is not broken.
My point is you can't cite other users of Protean and their "obvious" unbrokenness as evidence to Protean Greninja being broken when Protean Greninja wasn't broken until ORAS. The actual obvious thing is the ORAS changes that gave it Gunk Shot and Low Kick. I'm not advocating the banishment of those moves because banning those moves on Greninja would actually be somewhat arbitrary and convoluted, since the moves themselves are nowhere near broken given their wide distribution and long history in competitive play. Protean is markedly different given its newness to competitive play and extremely limited sample size in OU, which is again a really common sense observation, and this is why I wondered why banning Protean and not Greninja had been seriously considered.
I actually have a couple of issues with this paragraph. First, you seem to be making this logical process: Protean Greninja was not broken until ORAS -> Protean Greninja was not the only problem -> it became a problem after it received Gunk Shot and Low Kick -> banning Gunk Shot and Low Kick would be wrong because the moves outside of Greninja are not a problem -> we should ban Protean instead. So despite the fact that you imply that Protean Greninja alone was not the problem, and despite the fact that Protean is not a problem outside of Greninja (the same reasoning you used to dismiss a Gunk Shot / Low Kick ban), you still want to ban Protean. I get that your justification for this is that Protean is fairly new and has a small distribution, but I fail to see how this is relevant. Regardless of how long the ability has been around or how many Pokemon have it, only one abuser is broken. Protean, again, is not the issue.
And again it doesn't really mean anything when you say "but this is different!" every time you're trying to make an argument. This is necessarily different, or someone would have realized it's the exact same thing as Sand Veil or King's Shield and I wouldn't make a thread asking why x thing hasn't been considered instead of y thing that is always out default consideration. I maintain that the similarities warrant serious consideration, especially given the stated (and not by me) importance our councils place on "the least restrictions", a desirable metagame, and simple rules.
I say it's different because it's simply different. DrizzleSwim, Baton Pass, Sand Veil, Moody, none of these are comparable for a host of reasons, which I've already explained. You know which bans are comparable? Blaziken, Excadrill, Darkrai, Skymin, Aegislash, all of these are comparable examples of Pokemon that were banned arguably because of one main factor. In fact, basically all of these except Blaziken could have been worked around with a simple ban that would have removed the primary factor without affecting any other relevant Pokemon (although Excadril would have eventually had issues once Sandslash and Stoutland got Sand Rush). How did we handle these bans? Greninja is not some special little snowflake with a conundrum like we've never seen before. We have had suspects that found themselves in similar situations, and each time, we banned the Pokemon as a whole.
You, Oglemi and Haunter have already presented my case for me, having stated the importance our councils place on "the least restrictions", a desirable metagame, and simple rules. My resulting argument, therefore, has logically posited that serious consideration of banning Protean and not Greninja would have revealed that it is possible to keep all of these three ideals intact if we had indeed suspected/banned Protean and not Greninja.
I'm going to tag
Haunter and
Oglemi in case they want to respond to this, because neither of them explicitly told you that our suspect tests are determined by those three guidelines and nothing more. For one thing, you're forgetting perhaps the most important principle behind our suspect testing: banning the actual problem. If all you're going off of is whether or not a ban carries little restriction, benefits the metagame, and is simple rather than complex, then there are a whole host of bans that you could come up with that would fit those three rules. You could probably ban quite a few dangerous Pokemon and the metagame might technically improve due to the reduced pressure on teambuilding, but the banned Pokemon may not necessarily be broken at all. The principle of only banning what's actually broken is very important and is the driving force behind our suspect tests.
Now, let's look at what Oglemi actually said in his first post:
Oglemi said:
The main argument boils down to banning what is least restrictive. Precedent in this case being Blaziken. The major part that made Blaziken broken was Speed Boost (and subsequently its Mega Evolution, but still Speed Boost). The reason Blaziken itself was banned was because it was the least restrictive ban possible; banning Speed Boost restricts a few other Pokemon from being used to their full non-broken potential (Sharpedo mostly, but Yanmega/Ninjask/etc. as well). So it was clear that Blaziken + Speed Boost was the broken factor, but that creates a complex ban which are generally unwanted (a point that's still debated, but policy-wise was determined at the beginning of BW, especially during the Drizzle+Swift Swim ban, to be the most desirable).
There are several points to be made here:
A) Blaziken was a broken Pokemon and presented a problem for the OU metagame.
B) Speed Boost was the major part of Blaziken's being that made it broken.
C) Speed Boost was not broken on several other users, regardless of relevance, and banning it would hurt their potential.
D) Blaziken + Speed Boost was the main broken factor, but we didn't want to get into complex bans.
E) Blaziken as a whole was banned.
Stemming from this, we can logically conclude that even though Protean may be the major part that makes Greninja broken, the fact that it is not broken on other users and hurts their overall potential means that, like Speed Boost, Protean is not what needs to be banned. Again, a Protean ban would still be arguably even more restrictive since it affects 4 times as many Pokemon, a fact that Oglemi also stated in a later post, but that's a side note. If anything, Greninja + Protean would be the main problem (or Greninja + Gunk Shot or Greninja + base 122 Speed or something, but I digress), but as Oglemi stated here, we have made it a point to avoid complex bans. Now, I get that you disagree with that. You stated earlier that you thought Blaziken + Speed Boost should have been the ban, and that's another conversation entirely. However, it does not appear that Oglemi (or even Haunter, for that matter) has presented your case in the way you say he has, especially since he offers several arguments that counteract the points that you're trying to derive from his very posts.
"Completely arbitrary" is a sloppy exaggeration especially given what Haunter has said about the "next to no usage" he anticipates Greninja would have in OU if Protean were banned and not Greninja. I've already stated why the straws that broke the frog's back in Low Kick and Gunk Shot would and should not be seriously considered as suspects on Greninja (or otherwise), and am intimately familiar that Pokemon are complete packages. I'm just also familiar with the stated ideals of our council (because I essentially asked for them instead of saying "We should suspect/ban Protean and not Greninja"). And, again, I'm arguing that banning Protean instead of Greninja would have allowed us to stay true to these ideals, regardless of any differences this unique case necessarily has with past policy.
It's not an exaggeration to say that your idea is arbitrary. Greninja is a sum of many parts, as you seem to understand, and picking out Protean of all its tools as the target for a ban is arbitrary. Maybe it is the most obvious choice, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right one because you cannot say what exactly makes Greninja broken of all the tools at its disposal. I think one thing is obvious: you are not arguing for a Protean ban because Protean is actually a broken ability, and the more I think about it, the more this sounds like exploiting a loophole to keep Greninja out of Ubers.
I already stated that it's different when it's levied at a specific person. It really isn't a big deal because you've largely demonstrated yourself as one who is capable of debating without resorting to insults, and nobody has thicker skin than me (especially after dealing with Pokemon policy in Gen IV without any trails blazed for myself and Aeolus), but I thought I'd point it out anyway (also because I respond to everything a person says when debating).
I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you crap because I wasn't. However, I still do not take kindly to being called "weak-minded" or seeing that sort of insult leveled at anyone. I'd rather those sorts of tactics be left out of these discussions altogether.
If you're gathering that then you're doing so mistakenly. I am saying that you are preemptively deciding that "a given case" is without merit, completely closing the door—and your ears—to any scenario where a policy change that you personally think is without merit actually has merit.
The merit of "level caps" specifically could not be farther from the point, so I did not and will not engage you on it—why would I? You inserted some arbitrary strawman as an example of a policy idea that someone could possibly articulate an valid argument about, which itself does not make logical sense unless you actually think being well-written and a savvy debater matters much in policy suggestions that aren't trollish.
Hey, I'm not the one here talking about the "stupidity" or "lack of common sense" in level caps. It is posters defending
your point of view that have dismissed the merit of such rules, stating that bans like Protean + Greninja and Speed Boost + Blaziken would never lead to "ridiculous" bans like level caps. My point about level caps is simply that you could easily argue for level caps as potential nerfs just like you could move or level bans. The only reason you might need someone to articulate a well enough argument is simply that level caps sound "weirder" than ability or move bans, so you'd need someone who can get people past that attitude so that they could discuss the merits of such a nerf. Not that I think any of these nerfs are good ideas, mind you. Of course, if you're not one of the people in question that think that level caps are stupid or whatever, then this doesn't really apply to you.
As an aside, the level cap comment was simply a passing mention in a larger point. Don't look too much into it.
I'm going to phrase this in as polite and unassuming a manner as I can, because this paragraph and your other "do you remember"s read like you genuinely have no idea what my experience is despite me qualifying many of my comments—are you still not aware that I ran Pokemon policy for the entirety of Generation 4? There is not one person in the world who can lay better claim to the otherwise unimpressive and borderline depressing distinction of "Garchomp Policy expert". I wish I could forget it. Again, this is absolutely nothing to brag about, but your decision to write this long history lesson instead of saying a much more efficient—and effective—"You remember Garchomp in DP obviously, and this would be just like that because...."
Of course I know who you are, and I respect your experience as both a leader in this community and as a policy maker in the past. However, you're not the only one reading this thread. I explained the details because there are likely tons of newer players reading this discussion that would be very confused if I just said, "Hey, remember the deal with Garchomp in DPP? Yeah, well, this is like that."
That said, you're wrong. Salamence was decided on much differently from Garchomp and represented nothing close to a slippery slope. Aeolus and myself appointed a nine-member council to decide on Salamence, compared to Suspect Test Stages, after Platinum tutors granted it Outrage. As you've already observed, the uncompetitive Sand Veil was a significant factor in Garchomp's banishment, where Salamence was offed on competitive merit alone.
Regardless of how the ban was handled, Salamence was banned. Any arguments about Garchomp's ban leading to similar Pokemon bans (i.e. slippery slope arguments similar to what I and many others have mentioned) were correct. Whether it was suspect tests or council decisions (and we did shift between the two in BW as well), several Pokemon were banned in a manner similar to Garchomp. But regardless, the point is that a policy change was implemented because the metagame actually needed it. This is not the case with Protean.
"Leaving Greninja as a whole in Ubers" has no bearing on the OU metagame—that's like saying nobody will use Gallade in OU if it's banned from UU. A better argument is that leaving Greninja in OU with Torrent will have less of an impact on OU than banning Greninja outright will. You have yet to present a compelling case as to why it was necessary to ban Greninja and not just Protean, given the three ideals that have been posted in this thread could all easily still be observed (and slippery slope isn't a compelling argument as I have stated).
I never used the word "bearing" in my post at all, so please don't put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard, as it were). What I said is that keeping Greninja in Ubers will not
damage the metagame like leaving Garchomp in OU would have. Unlike the case with DPP Garchomp, refusing to change our policy is not going to cause harm to the metagame by leaving a broken Pokemon in the metagame. Yes, changing our policy in this case would let us play with a strongly nerfed Greninja in OU, but I do not see this as nearly enough of a reason to change our policy and face the potential consequences.
Speaking of which, the whole deal with the slippery slope arguments in the first place is the consequences of such bans. As jas61292 has explained, slippery slopes are not always fallacies. In fact, a slippery slope is a legitimate logical device when used correctly. Dismissing such arguments as logical fallacies when in fact they are not being used in a fallacious manner also means trying to ignore the consequences of implementing a certain policy decision, and that is a very dangerous way to approach these sorts of issues. I'll go ahead and link the Wikipedia article on slippery slopes because it does a good job of explaining what is and isn't a good slippery slope argument, which saves me a lot of trouble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
As far as the case to ban Greninja rather than Protean goes, the answer is quite simple: Greninja is the problem and not Protean. Precedent is a powerful thing, and the precedent that exists now regarding single Pokemon bans is one in which we have always targeted the Pokemon as a whole rather than individual aspects of it. The burden is not on me to maintain this precedent but on you to change it.
This isn't a routine ban for the same reason it is markedly different from Garchomp, or Baton Pass, or Swift Swim + Drizzle. This case presented a unique opportunity to preserve a Pokemon while adhering to our ideals, and I don't think this occurred to us before adhering to the status quo way we usually ban Pokemon.
Again, this is only true if you assume that your aforementioned "ideals" are the only principles that govern our ban policy and if you ignore the equally (if not more) important principle of banning what is actually broken. And again, Greninja is not the first case of a Pokemon that was banned arguably because of one main tool, even if it's one that affects few (if any) relevant Pokemon outside of the suspect in question.
Okay, so this post was
really long and I feel like I spent a lot of time repeating points that I've already made several times. The bottom line is that Greninja was banned because Greninja as a whole was a problem. Protean was not the problem in and of itself, and that should be obvious by the fact that only one Pokemon with the ability was even relevant in OU, much less broken. While banning Protean may be simple and arguably less restrictive, it also violates our policy of banning what is actually broken. I do not see the benefit of having Torrent Greninja in OU as a large enough benefit to change our policy like we have in past examples, and this decision would go against precedents that we have set several times with previous single Pokemon bans. Even in the case of complex bans, I believe that picking Protean out of Greninja's assets as the true breaking factor is arbitrary, and it is not worth the potential consequences that could arise if we were to head down that path (which, again, is not an inherently fallacious statement). I think that should summarize most of my points, so someone correct me if I missed something. If you have any more comments or questions, please respond, but I'm not sure what else I can say at this point (not to mention these posts seem to keep getting bigger and bigger, lol).
