I absolutely agree with this post. I hear a lot about how we need to streamline the process, and that's why we can't go with a "start with no bans" proposal, but it seems like the most streamlined process we've used so far is Gen 4 UU, which was essentially a no initial bans strategy.
I completely agree that our tiering decisions should have no "secret sauce" (suspect exp, for instance), nor should we limit consensus-building by anointing people to the "suspect council" in the name of expediency, when a simple vote does not take too much time. An outline of a process that I think would be both more fair and rational is to have set timelines for voting. Pokemon are nominated to be voted on in the next voting period by whatever process, and then we hold voting open for a set amount of time, and then go on that. No additional ladders, no paragraph submissions, etc. Simple, transparent, and fair.
Most of all, I am against trying to legislate rules for a game that does not yet exist. It would be like banning Roar of Time on Smeargle in Generation 4 because it sets the game back 5 turns, or like banning Rhyperior because it literally has no weaknesses with Solid Rock, and that's broken. We should wait to see what the game actually has before we start deciding certain things are clearly broken.
, a Pokemon AI.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu