This is exactly the type of mentality that I hate. This statement indicates to me that you want to avoid change that you think is unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with that thinking, but when necessary changes have been made, what else is there to do?"If it aint broke, don't fix it". There is no logical reason to believe that an SR-less metagame would be better, more playable, or more diverse, and there has also been no evidence that would suggest this either. A ban on Stealth Rock is just as arbitrary and unfounded as a ban on weather effects from OU.
You see, I do not want to "settle" on a metagame that I like. I would rather keep looking for better ones. When the problems/suspects are taken care of, I would like to see if improvements can be made, not consider everything "fixed" and leave it alone.
If that's not what you want, jrrrrrrr, then we just have to agree to disagree on that.
This is where I agree with Jumpman:I think that "it's not deserving of a ban" is a pretty legitimate reason to not test something. The simple fact is that there is nothing that would indicate that an SR-less metagame would be good, and I actually think that an SR-less game would be worse. Since it has existed since the start of d/p, the burden of brokenness/reasons to test fall on those who want a test.
There's no question to me that our metagame revolves around Stealth Rock. This is part of the reason why I would be interested in seeing the results of a Stealth Rock test.every time i read any revamp/analysis it says "with SR support" and "provided you have SR down" like at least twice and well if that isnt an indication that our metagame literally and figuratively revolves around this broken move then i dont know what is. weigh in here again guys...when should we considered testing this, if we dont agree that sr falls under my definition of suspect:
Any Pokémon, move or clause that respectively may benefit competitive standard or uber battle if moved or implemented elsewhere.