This is a more satisfactory reply.
Now, where I stand on this issue is that I am happy with what Aldaron's proposal has done. I am not however satisfied with the fact that this result had to be achieved through a complex ban. I believe banning Swift Swim will maintain the desired effects we've been seeing unfold in regards to balancing rain, while removing a ban that could potentially lead to controversial matters down the road.
As for your notes on how Swift Swim does not break every Pokemon, and the Pokemon is broken on its own merit; this is not entirely true. If that were the case, Kingdra would be walking on things without Swift Swim. A Pokemon is not a single entity. It's comprised of multiple components that make it function effectively (or not effectively). It goes both ways. Saying Kingdra is broken with Swift Swim is just as true as saying Ho-Oh is only broken with Sacred Fire and Brave Bird. So where do you draw the line?
The point is that something needs to go. Drizzle doesn't make every Swift Swim user broken, Drizzle doesn't make anything broken by itself, and without either functioning, none of the Pokemon in this discussion are even questionably suspect at all. You can't attempt to point the finger and assume responsibility to justify your bans, because then we get in to these circle arguments.
So. Since something needs to go, and we can't come to a conclusive decision as to what is to blame (since this is pointless, all the factors are at fault), we should go with what is the simplest, and most effective.
Banning Swift Swim accomplishes this. We keep a unique playstyle in OU (+1), we don't ban any Pokemon (+1), and all we lose is an ability that no one is using anyway (+1) when all Pokemon who have said ability already have an alternate ability (+1).
Anything you're proposing just complicates our rule set further.
In that case, I will rephrase. Kingdra is broken because of a combination of Swift Swim, Drizzle, its Water-typing, and its own merit. Other Pokemon have a combination of Swift Swim and Water-typing, and yet, even with Drizzle, they are not broken because their own merit is not sufficient. Swift Swim alone is not broken, nor is it broken on a Water-type in combination with Drizzle. With regard to Swift Swim, it is always the Pokemon that is broken.
The Ho-oh example only supports this. Even if Ho-oh would not be broken without Brave Bird or Sacred Fire, it is not Brave Bird and Sacred Fire that are broken; it is Ho-oh that is broken.
If we're stuck in a circle, then we should ban what is least damaging to ban. Banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops entirely would allow us to solve the problem with a simple ban that would not impact any Pokemon that are not broken. So according to your logic, why not do so?
As for your arbitrary points system, it needs some work.
Banning Swift Swim keeps a unique playstyle in OU, but in doing so, it eliminates another unique playstyle for no reason. Meanwhile, banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops would keep all Drizzle-related playstyles in OU; both the ones kept by banning Swift Swim and the one eliminated by banning Swift Swim. That may be a point in favor of banning Swift Swim over banning Drizzle, but it's a point very much against banning Swift Swim when the alternative is banning three specific Pokemon.
Not banning broken Pokemon is never a goal of a ban. There is no logic behind giving a ban of Swift Swim a point for that reason.
Your third point is false. People use Rain Dance + Swift Swim teams, and if Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops were banned rather than banning Swift Swim + Drizzle, people
would use not broken Swift Swim + Drizzle teams.
Your final point... isn't a point. What exactly are you saying is a benefit here, and why?
As for your final statement, that, too, is false. I am proposing two alternatives. One is to ban Kingdra + Drizzle, Ludicolo + Drizzle, and Kabutops + Drizzle. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banned, but only in combination with Drizzle. That is exactly as complex as the current ban of Swift Swim + Drizzle, and therefore doesn't make the ruleset more complex in the slightest.
My other alternative is the one I have been focusing on in discussion with you, since it seems like the one that you would find more appealing: Ban Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops, entirely, as ubers. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with the combination of Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banished to ubers. This alternative isn't complex in the slightest, and therefore shouldn't cause any issues according to your apparent priorities.
Admittedly a decision from PR would be helpful with regards to where we now stand on complex bans, and it seems very silent on the issue atm. There is nonetheless an advantage to not extending or trying to extend the banning system until such a decision is reached - not perpetuating the idea that complex bans are fine to people who may not understand the context, which then ends up clogging up the forums with cyclical debate. So for now, I think not going for more complex bans is the best option. If PR give the go-ahead then fine, but until then I'm opposed to the idea.
If we look at the desirable characteristics of the meta, stability is one of said characteristics, and I believe that that should be placed above the rehashing of old bans, even to make them more appropriate, as I agree is the case with Drizzle+SwSw. In the end, whatever we do to Drizzle+SwSw the impact on the meta will be small and the main effects will be in terms of banning with efficiency and/or focus, which to me puts it as a low priority issue until we have a stable meta otherwise. Eventually I would like to take another look at the ban, but I do not see that now is the time for that. Even if we set up a seperate method to look at the issue, it is less critical than suspect testing this early into gen 5, and will nonetheless take away resources which may otherwise have been focused on the suspect process.
In that case, what we need is for someone in PR to start a discussion that can lead to an official decision being made.
I'm a bit uncertain about calling a radical policy that a pathetic portion of the community is satisfied with "stable". But nonetheless, it seems we can agree that it would be reasonable to deal with this matter in such a manner that does not interfere with the current suspect testing. Would you consider a separate, simultaneous suspect ladder to be sufficient for that?