Well there's a quote that went something like "If it's not broken, don't fix it", and I think that applies to this ability clause. Until someone can find me some concrete evidence where a single ability has easily overwhelmed a team whereas 2 of those ability things could not, I don't see how anything is wrong. Basically, using gale wings as an example, if someone can show me how a 4 or 5 or 6 gale wings team demolished a team that a team with 2 gale wings users + team support could not overwhelm, then gale wings would probably be the biggest problem. And not just "I almost lost to this" level. I want protean spam level evidence, where 1 protean would not have done much damage, but suddenly 3 or 4 proteans easily overwhelms most teams and has literally no counters. I really don't see any group of abilities or single ability that is anywhere close to warranting a new rule.
The answer to this is that it is true that these are not broken. That is not really why Klang and those who support ability clause wish to implement it. Refer to Klang's OP:
So the AAA council has been talking recently and after some discussion a vote is now in progress on the implementation of a 2 ability clause, similar to BH and for almost the same reasons. The reasoning behind this clause is it would help limit ability spam that some people deem unhealthy for the metagame and forces people to run counters instead of checks for certain abilities (Gale Wings being the most obvious) which some people think causes teambuilding constraints and makes the meta less fun.
My post in the council conversation sums the situation up nicely I think:
I wouldn't say that ability spam is completely broken, but rather can cause serious team constraints and match-up issues that generally make the metagame less appealing as a whole. For example, the possibility of GW spam (we know GW isn't broken individually) means that you can't only carry a check on more offensive teams, but rather a solid counter such as Skarmory or Zapdos that needs to be able to take on 3 or 4 Gale Wingers in a row without dying - failure to have something rock solid to take on GW usually means GW spam will destroy you. With an ability clause however, your options for dealing with Gale Wings would be significantly expanded.
Regenerator spam and PH spam (or both combined), while also not individually broken, leaves teams without significantly strong firepower helpless, in addition to making stall versus stall quite literally last forever.
It is possible that Protean may not be broken individually as well - the basis of its ban was spam teams.
When Monte says the meta has become "LAME", I am pretty sure that this is what he refers to, and I fully agree. AAA has really nosedived in activity relative to what it was when it was launched because although you don't
have to run those abilities and may even perform better against certain teams if you don't spam a few abilities, but there is nothing stopping anyone from currently doing so. I know I personally and many others have been driven away from the metagame because a few abilities have become so dominant that one has to resort to gimmick or test teams, or run the same abilities themselves.Also keep note of the last line which I shall get back to later.
Now I shall point out why ability clause is necessary by addressing your most recent post:
Look, maybe you see it differently, but I actually like how the metagame is "FREE AS FUCK". One of the reasons I joined OM was because of how many more possibilities there were, and I hoped the metagames wouldn't be centered around a few pokemon (and I'd say AAA actually isn't right now, and that's one of the reasons I've continued playing it).
First of all I think the second half is completely wrong. I think we can agree that AAA is centralized heavily towards a few abilities such as Regenerator, Poison Heal, Unaware and Gale Wings, which are much more relevant than 'mons, which is why we are discussing an ability clause and not pokemon bans. So "centered" around a few pokemon" isn't really relevant.
Now I'll get to the main point of why ability clause is necessary. As you mentioned above, you say that you joined OM because of how many possibilities there are, and indeed that is why I play many OMs as well. However, it doesn't truly matter how many possibilities there are if the metagame as a whole is centered around only a handful of abilities that either you are forced to run or forced to stop, and the latter can be near impossible if you only have 1 stop, and are facing 2, 3 or more of the same thing. In addition, I fail to see the "possibilities" that you supposedly get by running the same ability over and over on the team. You could argue that sure the typing and coverage moves change, or you could even have two distinct sets for the same ability, such as Gale Wings, where you can have a physical Brave Bird set, and a special Hurricane set.This is not actually what is happening though. Many times, it quite literally is the same set copied over with a change in coverage based on the STAB or what is available to the new mon, enforced by the species clause, which can be seen in teams with multiple Gale Wings. Other times, it is more subtle where you may have a Special PH wall and a Physical PH wall which may stop different things, but a team that does not prepare for PH will still suffer heavily against both if they as Klang mentioned, simply lack the firepower to just kill them outright. This is ignoring the gimmick mono spam teams completely, the argument against which I put in my last post and can expand upon again if needed.
Next:
I just want to point out that you can probably be just as successful by changing, say, a ph zapdos to magic guard, and then you wouldn't be violating the ability clause.
Maybe you're running 3 Poison healers, but honestly, you could just change that PH suicune to Unaware suicune, and your team might actually perform better after that.
I am not mentioning Monte specifically here because I know he makes his own ideas, but I also want to point out that yes, one
could be as successful or more by taking some time to think of new ways to use abilities to achieve the same result. My question is why should he? It takes very little thought to just slap PH on someone and go. With an abiltiy clause however, people would have to resort to thinking through their teams, and making use of other abilities. And as you did note, you are achieving the same level of efficiency without violating the ability clause or i.e. the ability clause does not hamper your ability (heh) to run nearly the same strategies. What is changing is the creation of new matchups that the use of new abilities will undoubtedly bring (either by some kind of unique typing, moveset or stats)
As to why, I think 1 ability clause is more necessary than two, well I'll use your posts again:
A 2-ability clause doesn't really help out that much besides add yet another complex ban.
...
In my experience, 5 or 6 bird teams don't perform very well when they're all gale wings, but 5 or 6 bird teams with only 1 or 2 gale wings usually do extremely well in practice. The same applies for most teams; a 2 ability clause wouldn't really stop too much
Many effective teams already have only 1 ability per mon, but why limit some of the possibilities that could be made with 2 of the same ability on the same team or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6?
(I've already mentioned why I think it is wrong to say it is something that is "not needed to be restricted")
You mention how a two ability clause would not change much and I agree which is why I suggested a 1 ability clause (along with the other reasoning in my old post about stall probably getting a good advantage with a 2 ability clause). In addition, by enforcing the one ability clause, we may be able to use old abilities such as Protean and Speed Boost which can otherwise dominate the meta alone in a free for all, or 2 allowed, state. There is no way to know whether an ability that is overpowered in a free for all setting is overpowered in a limited setting except for the most obvious way, which is to retest them (I am of course excluding abilities such as Wonder Guard here, which are known to be broken even in a 1 allowed setting). By doing so, we may run into the same bans, but I do feel that some will not be banned completely which again opens up a new batch of possibilities of how to use that ability and how to stop it.
tldr/Conclusion:
AAA is a metagame centered around ability play, so I definitely would want to see teams with a varied selection of abilities, instead of just having different mons centered around defeating or using just a handful of them. An ability clause would bring in new abilities that are used, it would reduce the need to prepare extensively for a certain ability more than others, and would bring in new matchups and therefore promote more diversity. I see a net gain in possibilities here, and a good way to reinvigorate an increasingly stale meta.