Posting to say I agree with implementing a poll system to determine which clauses should be initially banned or unbanned. However, I also wanted to give my opinion on the validity/necessity of the four clauses.
As much I agree that Sleep Clause and Species Clause are the only clauses that should remain implemented, I'm surprised that so many people are indifferent about Evasion Clause and OHKO Clause.
Firstly, let me say that I agree that Evasion and OHKO attacks are terrible moves which completely waste a precious slot on a Pokemon. However, as mentioned many times, we're striving for a "desirable metagame" through these clauses. Permitting such moves in the metagame adds an element of chance that is beyond the control of the user who is defending against these attacks, meaning OHKO and Evasion moves promote luck. For years competitive players have been lamenting how luck ruins the fun in Pokemon, and I don't see in what ways removing Evasion Clause and OHKO Clause would result in a more stable or enjoyable metagame. In theory, removing these clauses doesn't sound too bad, but when you miss every attack on a +1 Evasion Scizor and it sweeps your team, or when your opponent's Gliscor goes 6/6 with Guillotine, you can start to see where the problem lies. To quote Aeolus:
Evasion and OHKO clauses have been banned for years because they are "strategies" based on luck. Dice rolling. Any OHKO move might KO any pokemon 30% of the time regardless of the opponent's quality team building, expert strategic play, or brilliant prediction. Evasion is the same craps shoot in that its use simply attempts to nullify an opponent's strategic play.
With that said I really don't mind if we undergo a period where they're tested, since we never know what will happen until we try it out, however I just cannot see any competitive benefit from eliminating these clauses. Why fix what's not broken?