First off, just because something "seems wrong" does not mean it is. If we can keep as many possible styles of play available and take away as many broken or all around unenjoyable styles (talking things like Wobb trapping) at the same time, that is good. Banning morethan is needed simply leads to a barren metagame, and that is no fun to play. Secondly, it is rarely the case that one move makes something overpowered. I would like to cite Ononokusu, who despite not exactly fitting this question, is in a similar situation. Despite having a possibly "broken" 147 attack stat, his meh defenses, lack of a second STAB, and alright movepool make it perfectly within the limits of the OU metagame. This is very similar to the "OMG Rampardos is so strong. BROKEN!" and Porygon-Z hype that early DPP was so famous for. It is usually the combination of a good ability, good resistances (not always), good movepool, and good stats that make a pokemon great (ie Scizor and Heatran, the kings of DPP). Thusly, I don't find the banning of broken abilities to be a slippery slope to a banning frenzy. Only abilities that are grossly overpowered or flat-out entirely luck-based will have a chance of being banned, and I believe that any player who enjoys this game can appreciate that.But, banning individual aspects of a Pokemon seems off. We've already done items. What's to stop future bannings of different attacks, or other qualities? Like, "Pokemon X is overpowered, but only with Bullet Punch," or "Pokemon Y is overpowered, but only with a Careful nature."