First, that took forever to read.
Second, it is almost impossible to make heads or tails of all the arguments in this thread.
Third: My Post
I'd like to start by attempting to outline a few of the common arguments that I find in this thread and the reasoning behind them so that no one mistakes my meaning when I begin my own opinion
1. Things should be banned to Uber because they have certain "Uber" qualities, not because there is a bias against them.
This view is reflected in the OP and many posters here have agreed with or modified this view.
2. Things that increase luck should be banned.
Several users support banning OHKOs/DT/Skymin because of the "Luck Factor"
3.Banning should be based on what makes the game more fun/better regardless of proven brokenness, or overcentralization.
X-Act summed this nicely by saying "Something is uber (or BL for the underused metagame) if the general community does not want it to be in that metagame."
4. If we ban 1 thing we can argue that 2 more definitely not uber things should be banned for the same/similar reasons, so that reason is bad.
This is the view espoused by the unrelenting troll. It is also a view some of the other members here have been using more carefully to make arguments that a standard needs to be universal and not just used for one pokemon. Obi made a cameo with this sort of argument, albeit much more intelligently than Settroll.
5. Ninetendo should regulate the metagame.
LOL. Nintendo knowsa nothing about the metagame and holds very few official tournaments. Additionally Nintendo has shown no interest in the metagame.
6. A pokemon should be banned to ubers if it causes an unacceptable overcentralization in the metagame.
This is the opinion of many and if I'm not mistaken, Smogon's official position. It's real champion is Serene Grace(always Tangerine to me).
I think that covers most of the prominent views. In response to each,
1. I think everyone agrees that bias is not a reason to ban a pokemon. It seems no more discussion is necessary on bias since everyone is already thinking hard about how to remove bias from the suspect test. On the other hand I definitely don't think that a list of qualities that a pokemon possesses can every define an uber. "Uncounterability," 1-2kos, "ease of set up," great movepool, "unstoppable" movesets, etc. all sound like things that might describe an uber but can be so easily subjectified and argued back and forth that no definition of uber will ever arrive from them which both includes all the pokemon that are already obviously uber while excluding all pokemon which are obviously not uber and gives a useful measure by which to compare those which are in between.
2. I definitely don't think that all luck should be removed from the game. That would be the most limiting metagame we've ever seen. The thing is, no one else wants that either. This point has been this victim of some of the worst Strawman arguments in the whole thread. "Skymin turns the outcome of the match into a coin flip" -> "Let's ban Crits too, then!" This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that has been repeated over and over again. Banning one thing because it brings game-altering levels of devastating, pure luck (i'm not saying skymin does this, that's another debate) is different than simply saying "it adds luck to the game." If luck is going to be any sort of factor both sides need to work with some kind of idea of what is "too much" luck or when luck has "too much" affect on the game's outcome.
3. First, I would like to say that it is meaningless to create arguments against this view. The view that "The banlist exists to remove undesirable elements from the game, and 'undesirable' is simply determined by the preferences of the players" is not a scientificaly formulated argument, it is a fundamentally different point of view. You cannot convince someone that this view is wrong. that is simply because: It isn't. I'm not saying I agree with that philosophy. I'm saying that you argue about which methods will most effectively reach a goal, but you can't argue what is the "right" goal. The question "Is is better to seek the most purely competitive and balance metagame, or the most fun metagame regardless of competitiveness or balnce?" has no answer. People will fall either on one side or the other and only a small miracle will move them (flaming cetainly won't do the trick). Currently Smogon's official answer to that question is "competitive and balanced."v I think it's perfectly fine to petition that decision but I also know that I did not/do not create/moderate/maintain/improve this forum and that when it comes to a fundamental desicion about the philosophy of smogon, it's not up to me. In the future if the smogon officials choose to include the general public in a desicion about something like that That would be great, but for now I feel that all we can really discuss is what we can do to reach our stated goal. If you don't like that goal, well, there's always serebii.
4. In review, it seems that point 4 is a subset of point 1. Whenever we define "Uber" qualities we tend to include more pokemon than we intended and open ourselves to more and more strawman.
5. Yeah... Tang had an interesting point with this but I'll leave that to my closing speal.
6. In my understanding, this is the most legitimatizable reason for banning something. Even if you can't prove overcentralization statistically (and X-Act is working on that) I think players can tell when it's happening. THe hard part is trying to pin down what is causing the centralizing effect and also trying to wade through all the other murk to determine when a single aspects removal will promote diversity.
So, from all that the way I see it is this:
Whether it is currently popular or not the official goal of this forum is to promote a balanced and competetive metagame. This is not up for debate. In my opinion, the best way to promote said balanced and competetive metagame is to prevent overcentralization through the careful use of bans on factors that contribute to overcentralization. I think this has been supported by the near-proven futility of defining "Uber traits." In addition to removing overcentralization, I think that to maintain a competitive spirit, certain factors which promote an excessive emphasis on luck should also be removed from the metagame. At this point, I make all my decisions on what I think about bans etc. from that basis. I am of course open to those who would challenge that view.
