"I'm tired of Colin saying "well look... Wobb isnt used as much as Blissey! If we were to ban something, it would be her!"
I've never said anything like this. I have never said that if something is used more it is better than something that is used less. Nor have I said the reverse. Maybe somebody's said that, but it wasn't me, and that reasoning does not underscore the method I have been advocating.
What I have actually advocated is unbanning the pokemon, and then checking if the game has become more centralised, which we can determine by considering: the number of pokemon that comprise the top X% of usages; and the number of moves which comprise the top X% of each pokemon's move usages (though I haven't written the script that will check this yet). What this does is gives us -- as a matter of fact -- whether the pokemon has centralised the metagame. This is what I have been advocating and it is completely sound. I was intending on writing a more full presentation of this empirical method at the start of March, but consider this a bit of a preview.
One objection that often comes up is: "Well maybe the pokemon isn't centralising because of X, Y, and Z and therefore it's still uber". Often X, Y, and Z take the form of social taboos. These people like to think of the Shoddy Battle ladder as just an
approximation of a theoretical metagame where everybody is using the best sets on each pokemon, and the best pokemon. But the mistake here is that there is no reason to believe such a theoretical metagame exists: it is more likely that the metagame will in fact fluctuate endlessly, rather than approach a final "limit" as the best sets are discovered.
So how do I counter this problem? Instead of viewing "uberness" as an intrinsic property of pokemon, I consider it a function of the pokemon
and the metagame it is being used in. There are some metagames where pokemon we now consider uber would not be uber. They are uber in our metagame, however. Rather than viewing an uber list as something that we discover and then let sit, I think it should be viewed as something that can be periodically revised as the metagame shifts.
Does the metagame actually fluctuate enough to warrant revisions? Probably not. But it might, and if factors X, Y, and Z are currently causing Wobbuffet not to be uber, then when those factors cease to exist it will be uber and it can be banned then.
As I said, this is just a preview of something larger I wanted to develop later, but it's become necessary to comment on ridiculous strawmen.