I have to disagree here. The purpose of a ban is to remove broken aspects of the game from the metagame.
However, looking at what ban is most damaging to existing strategies is how we determine what ban is more acceptable.
I understood that. I was under the impression, however, that one of your points for not agreeing with the idea to ban Swift Swim outright was that it would ruin a playstyle, specifically Swift Swim under Rain Dance. If I misinterpreted, then my apologies.
Replied above.
I fail to see the benefit of preserving a playstyle if it means having to ban Pokemon in the process in order to preserve it. It is in my mind more preferable to have more OU viable Pokemon than it is to have more ways to abuse Drizzle.
I already did. It maintains the approach of simple, concise bans while avoiding as many bans as possible.
I think we've misinterpreted what each other is talking about, so I'll just leave this be.
I disagree. As I stated before, Swift Swim and an out right ban of Drizzle are the only bans to help alleviate the problem that ban as few Pokemon as possible. Banning the Pokemon IS an option, but because this is not a usual case, I do not see a reason to put multiple Pokemon on a chopping block.
Um. How? Ludicolo and Kingdra certainly didn't become unviable just because they lost Swift Swim? Kabutops, I am unsure. As for UU, if you referring to Rain Dance strategies being ruined due to the absence of Swift Swim, I don't see a reason why Swift Swim could only be banned in OU. But that's my take.
Rain Dance + Swift Swim has always been a side note, not a main point. The point I have been focusing on is Drizzle + Swift Swim, and you haven't been addressing it in the slightest.
Banning Swift Swim won't increase the number of OU-viable Pokemon. Without Swift Swim, the only Swift Swim Pokemon that are any good in OU are Kingdra and Gorebyss. On the other hand, banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops would leave at least six or so Pokemon viable in OU with Swift Swim + Drizzle sets, possible more.
Banning Swift Swim will only decrease the number of OU-viable Pokemon, as it has already done.
That's not an answer. As I have explained over and over again, "concise" bans that ban a large group of things are not automatically better than banning the three or so Pokemon within that group that are actually broken. You need more of a reason than that.
This is a completely usual case. Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops are broken sweepers. That's all there is to it.
When Swift Swim + Drizzle was banned, Ludicolo and Kabutops became largely unviable in OU, and are now only seen on Rain Dance teams. Banning Swift Swim entirely would remove them from even those teams.
And no, banning Swift Swim only in OU and permitting it in lower tiers is not an option:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85063
Whilst i think this is probably the best alternative, for me, it brings ups the whole slippery slope argument. I mean, where do we draw the line with banning certain pokemon and abilities? Im not questioning anyone's thought process or anything like that, just wondering what we could do to prevent us going down a slippery slope where we end up banning Excadrill and Sandstream or Venusaur and Drought (not saying they're broken, just two solid examples of pokemon who are probably the best abusers of the other two (prominent) forms of weather.)
We draw the line at common sense, rationality, and things that actually have a good reason to be banned. As I observed in another thread, Aldaron's proposal opened the door to ideas of future complex bans, but rather than a slippery slops, the door lead to a sticky slope, where any idea is inspected carefully before going anywhere. There's no danger whatsoever in a sticky slope as long as we maintain it.
I think we're not going to get a very complex ban though. Blaziken was banned, rather than Blaziken+Speed Boost. The tiering contributors may see Kingdra+Drizzle, Kabutops+Drizzle, Ludicolo+Swift Swim+Drizzle as being way too complicated.
I seriously don't think that having 3 elements in a ban is anywhere near too complicated.
Blaziken + Speed Boost was a different type of complex ban than Kingdra + Drizzle, and one that requires different principles. The key difference is that the principles required for a ban of Kingdra + Drizzle were already accepted in the accepting of Aldaron's proposal.
Also, if we leave Swift Swim out of the bans, it's still just two elements, not three. While there is merit at adding Swift Swim to the ban, especially for Ludicolo, there are matters much more important than Rain Dish Ludicolo at stake here.
Ah, that is where your argument is flawed.
Ban Kingdra + Drizzle, because Swift Swim on Kingdra breaks Kingdra.
Ban Sand Veil + Sand Stream, because Sand Veil causes evasion.
Notice where the two arguments you put foward do not match up? For consistancy, you'd either have to ban Swift Swim + Drizzle [Which is what we have now], or, you would have to ban Garchomp + Sand Stream.
Also, Manpahy does have a few suspect sets without Drizzle. There's CroManaphy [CroCune V 2], or ChestoRest + Tail Glow/Calm Mind. While I would support a re-test of Manaphy if, and only if, Drizzle is banned altogether, the banning of Drizzle would cause the metagame to crumble to one dominated by Sand and Sun.
No, these are the arguments:
Ban Kingdra + Drizzle, because Drizzle makes Kingdra broken.
Ban Sand Veil + Sand Stream, because Sand Stream makes Sand Veil uncompetitive.
They're essentially the same argument. The only differences are that Sand Veil should be restricted for uncompetitiveness rather than brokenness, and that Sand Veil is an ability rather than a Pokemon. However, this is no different from the current bans we have in place. We ban Blaziken, Darkrai, Deoxys, and Deoxys-A because they as Pokemon are broken, and we ban Moody from all Pokemon because it makes all Pokemon broken. By the same token, we should ban Kingdra (+ Drizzle), Ludicolo (+ Drizzle), and Kabutops (+ Drizzle), because they as Pokemon are broken (in combination with Drizzle), and we should ban Sand Veil (+ Sand Stream) because it makes all Pokemon uncompetitive (in combination with Sand Stream). That isn't a matter of inconsistency in the slightest.
Indeed, Manaphy might still be broken, but it should still be tested at some point as long as it is not used with Drizzle. There is no reason why an entire Drizzle ban would be necessary for that rather than just a Manaphy + Drizzle ban, though.