Ok, honestly I don't quite buy this "What if offence was made much more difficult to use by a particular pokemon?" approach. It should be pretty easy to guess that I would in fact feel differently if offence was made less viable by a particular threat, and that I would advocate a ban for it. However, currently, I am not doing the same for stall, and I find nothing inconsistent about this approach at all.
Some might point to me as extreme, but I am being no more extreme than the voters of gen 5 OU, who even brought down Kyurem-B from ubers as opposed to just deciding to keep the pokemon in question OU:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/np-bw-ou-suspect-testing-round-7-ice-ice-baby.3473636/
http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...sandstorm-excadrill-thundurus-banned.3449630/
I'm aware that some people didn't like the end of BW2 OU too much due to the effectiveness of spike stack, and the drought + venusaur combination. These seem like pretty legit concerns, and I see a ban has been made to eliminate one and try to fix the other. However, be careful not to use a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument fallacy, which would be to say that we should ignore this decision because of a dissatisfaction about the metagame, as a tier with Kyurem-B being less than ideal is very different from a tier being less than ideal because of Kyurem-B.
As for this "Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame" article, I feel like just relying on a 5 year old article to decide the current suspecting process would miss the point of this thread. As I just demonstrated, suspect voters have already voted contrary to this article's philosophy, and this is one of the instances where we must consider doing the same thing again. To be honest, different play styles do not have the same importance to the metagame. The not so bold assertion I'm going to make is that full stall and a large number of semi stall builds are very forgiving in terms of prediction and overall game plan, because it is usually just wear down the opposing team with hazards and other forms of passive damage. As proof of this, I must point out that many people in OLT are using stall to ladder, despite games taking much longer by doing so. If tilt, by which I mean a decrease in playing capability, is more likely to happen after playing pokemon for a long time as opposed to a short time, then this approach would appear to be very counter-productive, unless of course this playstyle is as forgiving in prediction and matchup based as I believe it to be. As a side note, the amount of stall used on the ladder right now would indicate to me that it isn't as unviable as some would make it out to be.
Many people have pointed to GSC as a defensive and skill-based metagame, but due to the points I made earlier in this thread about how defensive styles currently work, quoted below, I think that asking for such a thing now would be a contradiction in terms; it is very difficult to get a win earned by skill rather than hax against stall if you do not carry the correct breakers needed for that specific stall team.
Hazard removal is more reliable than before, with defog having strong distribution, and Mega Sableye can even stop hazards from going up in the first place. Wearing down pokemon becomes increasingly difficult when they have regenerator. Although it has limited distribution, Unaware can prevent pokemon can setting up effectively in the first place. All in all, I believe that powerful breakers should be considered a necessity in the current metagame.
Advocating 3 different bans to support a play style which has what I would call a controversial effect on the game it is being used in seems like 3 steps too far to me. When it comes down to it, voters, myself included, are going to vote for the metagame which seems most fun. The key question being asked here is to what extent we should try to support stall; if voters deem that a metagame where stall has decreased effectiveness is more fun, then there is nothing wrong with breaking previously suggested metagame moulds to bring about this change.
