We all know GSC is the stalliest meta and is the least played one. We all know that part of the reason why GSC is more stally is due to the omnipresence of leftovers. I'm sure it's been suggested a million times, but why not remove the item clause.
I honestly cannot think of an argument against an item clause other than "tradition". But let's face it, probably 90% of people who play gen1 and 2 competitively today probably didn't play it in the 'old' days. Apart from the fact that an item clause would lessen the stall (to an extent) it is also the truly "official" way to play GSC, ie. it as used for PS2 and official Niintendo GSC tourneys. It would allow for item diversity and make the thief meta more interesting.
It honestly seems like a brainless decision to me. It's the official competitive meta of GSC, more diverse and less stally. I'm not saying GSC would suddenly become amazingly popular because of an item clause, but it would probably have more activity than if it didn't have an item clause.
So what arguments are there against an item clause apart from tradition?
I honestly cannot think of an argument against an item clause other than "tradition". But let's face it, probably 90% of people who play gen1 and 2 competitively today probably didn't play it in the 'old' days. Apart from the fact that an item clause would lessen the stall (to an extent) it is also the truly "official" way to play GSC, ie. it as used for PS2 and official Niintendo GSC tourneys. It would allow for item diversity and make the thief meta more interesting.
It honestly seems like a brainless decision to me. It's the official competitive meta of GSC, more diverse and less stally. I'm not saying GSC would suddenly become amazingly popular because of an item clause, but it would probably have more activity than if it didn't have an item clause.
So what arguments are there against an item clause apart from tradition?