be the upgraded version of me
To be fair, yee, both sides are guilty of forecasting of a potential future metagame. jcp goes on listing many UU / RU Pokemon that would all of a sudden see usage in OU if Rain is banned (most of his predictions being off-the-mark - Whimsicott seeing usage, really? Feraligatr seeing usage after banning Rain, REALLY?). Lavos states that "the amount of pokemon that suddenly become viable as a result of drizzle's banning outnumber those that will be negatively impacted ten to one." Where he got the figures other than from thin air is hard to say.
Basically, if you have 2 equally viable options - you will weigh the pros and cons of each decision, and choose the one with the greater pro. So far banning Rain abusers have been the more preferable choice. Of course there would be a time where we ban TOO MANY Rain abusers (ie banning Gyarados, Starmie, Tornadus, or even Thundurus-T), at which point banning Rain would be more desirable, but we haven't reached that point yet.
EDIT: Swift Swimmers aren't banned, and that's the beauty of Aldaron's Proposal - we were able to keep both Drizzle and Swift Swimmers in OU without banning anything. If anything, Swift Swimmers would be worse off with the banishment of Drizzle (and worst off if Swift Swim was banned), since the popularity of rain is one of the main reasons to use them in OU.
@ BKC: Also I suggest re-reading the pro-Drizzle's argument, because you obviously do not understand them well (which is NOT good, if you're debating...)
Making bans simple as possible is certainly one that we keep in mind, but far from being top priority, which is banning only the things that should be banned, nothing more. Politoed + Rain Abusers has been a sticky issue, because we have 2 options - ban Rain or its Abusers. Either option solves the problem. Now that we have identified the broken element(s), the next preferred step is to make the ban that have the least repercussion to the metagame. We have chosen to keep Rain in BW1 when the issue was first addressed, because banning Rain had a far more over-reaching influence (ie on par as banning Stealth Rock, for instance) than singular abusers can ever impose on the metagame. Thus, even if we did end up banning Manaphy & Thundurus-I, because of their power under Rain, the overall effect on the metagame is far more minimal than banishing Rain, an entire metagame-level archetype. Entering BW2, we ended up banning Tornadus-T, but I believe that banning 3 Pokemon broken in Rain is far more desirable still than banning Rain itself. It's not like these banned mons would be particularly happy in OU without Rain, either (Tornadus-T would be shit without Rain, Thundurus may be potentially broken regardless of Rain, etc).yee said:It cannot be justified on this site to argue against the banning of a pokemon by pointing out how bad the immediately resulting metagame is, the reasons being that it contradicts our nature of making bans as simple as possible by trying to predict a whole new metagame (this is why Iconic has his speech about not voting on which meta you like better in the voting threads), and that we will be better off anyway if we discover underlying broken factors and end up banning those too.
Basically, if you have 2 equally viable options - you will weigh the pros and cons of each decision, and choose the one with the greater pro. So far banning Rain abusers have been the more preferable choice. Of course there would be a time where we ban TOO MANY Rain abusers (ie banning Gyarados, Starmie, Tornadus, or even Thundurus-T), at which point banning Rain would be more desirable, but we haven't reached that point yet.
EDIT: Swift Swimmers aren't banned, and that's the beauty of Aldaron's Proposal - we were able to keep both Drizzle and Swift Swimmers in OU without banning anything. If anything, Swift Swimmers would be worse off with the banishment of Drizzle (and worst off if Swift Swim was banned), since the popularity of rain is one of the main reasons to use them in OU.
@ BKC: Also I suggest re-reading the pro-Drizzle's argument, because you obviously do not understand them well (which is NOT good, if you're debating...)