Stole this from DLC, but it's great for building an argument around this debate.
Alright. I'm gonna break this down, using a mixture of my opinion and those expressed by others (like an 85 / 15 split).
1. Is the metagame truly better without Sand?
Short and sweet, no. Nothing about removing sand makes UU better. More or less, all it does is make Stoutland easier to out-speed and Gligar easier to hit. Sure it brings items like Life Orb back up to a high and reduces a Pokemon's dependency on its typing, or carrying Leftovers or a recovery move. Regardless, sand is merely a playstyle, and even though it's the only permanent weather available in UU and is technically riding at a mere 6.1% usage, any decent player should be prepared for it. There are ways to play around Sand, and even though tactics like Ran Dance or Sunny day can be undone by switching Hippopotas back in, as a community, very few and far between of us actually use these tactics, and simply allow Sand to run through us. Calling for the ban of Sand is like trying to ban stall. It's a playstyle, and players are butt-hurt because they either have difficulties or simply cannot beat sand and what it brings.
2. Is it acceptable to ban something on personal preference?
Absolutely not. Banning requires something to be too good, it's uncompetitive, and simply having (for example) a Sand Veil Gligar on a Sand team does not gain you an automatic win. It's a 20% increase in Evasion, and even if it gives you an advantage, even the slightest, it's not guaranteed to change a game. Gligar is piss weak, and can't hit much without using its STAB or Toxic. People that call for Sand to be banned generally base it off a personal preference, simply because it ended a ladder streak or caused them to over-react to a child's game. Statistically, and seeing that less than 10 Pokemon directly in the UU tier immediately benefit from Sand, there's really no need to ban it. You're only going to see it 3 in every 50 battles (6.1%). Once again, something should be so good it ruins the metagame, and Sand is not that dominant in UU.
If you ask me, we should unban Drought Vulpix and Snow Warning Snover and bring them back to UU or make a larger emphasis on Rain Dance / Sunny Day teams, giving some balance to the weather spat. I just don't see sand needing a ban.
3. What is the community's stance on this issue, and to what extent should that opinion be considered.
My interpretation on the community's stance on Sand is it should go for suspect, as the PO environment compared to our own have shown different aspects of Sand in and out of the metagame, and that these aspects should be put to the test to see if Sand truly needs to be banned without bias. This and the opinions expressing fact-based arguments that supply examples, explanations, and reason really should be the opinions heeded. These are players offering better to great advice on how to make the UU tier better. Basically, anyone to have replied in the last 3-5 days and have collectively more than 4 paragraphs to support their stance should have their opinions heard. The general stance on Sand that "it needs to go, as soon as possible", without the effort of researching a sandless UU metagame should be generally ignored. It offers little reason as to why Sand should go, and normally has little support.
However, we must remember that sand is only a playstyle, and doesn't dictate the metagame. This is BW UU, not DPP OU. If the Senate and the majority of the tier cannot live to see a metagame without Sand, then by all means, ban it. I don't play sand, and have played against it, and I see no issue with it. But up until that point, I see there to be no reason for Sand to be more than suspect outside of personal preference, de-warranting the need for a ban.
Alright. I'm gonna break this down, using a mixture of my opinion and those expressed by others (like an 85 / 15 split).
1. Is the metagame truly better without Sand?
Short and sweet, no. Nothing about removing sand makes UU better. More or less, all it does is make Stoutland easier to out-speed and Gligar easier to hit. Sure it brings items like Life Orb back up to a high and reduces a Pokemon's dependency on its typing, or carrying Leftovers or a recovery move. Regardless, sand is merely a playstyle, and even though it's the only permanent weather available in UU and is technically riding at a mere 6.1% usage, any decent player should be prepared for it. There are ways to play around Sand, and even though tactics like Ran Dance or Sunny day can be undone by switching Hippopotas back in, as a community, very few and far between of us actually use these tactics, and simply allow Sand to run through us. Calling for the ban of Sand is like trying to ban stall. It's a playstyle, and players are butt-hurt because they either have difficulties or simply cannot beat sand and what it brings.
2. Is it acceptable to ban something on personal preference?
Absolutely not. Banning requires something to be too good, it's uncompetitive, and simply having (for example) a Sand Veil Gligar on a Sand team does not gain you an automatic win. It's a 20% increase in Evasion, and even if it gives you an advantage, even the slightest, it's not guaranteed to change a game. Gligar is piss weak, and can't hit much without using its STAB or Toxic. People that call for Sand to be banned generally base it off a personal preference, simply because it ended a ladder streak or caused them to over-react to a child's game. Statistically, and seeing that less than 10 Pokemon directly in the UU tier immediately benefit from Sand, there's really no need to ban it. You're only going to see it 3 in every 50 battles (6.1%). Once again, something should be so good it ruins the metagame, and Sand is not that dominant in UU.
If you ask me, we should unban Drought Vulpix and Snow Warning Snover and bring them back to UU or make a larger emphasis on Rain Dance / Sunny Day teams, giving some balance to the weather spat. I just don't see sand needing a ban.
3. What is the community's stance on this issue, and to what extent should that opinion be considered.
My interpretation on the community's stance on Sand is it should go for suspect, as the PO environment compared to our own have shown different aspects of Sand in and out of the metagame, and that these aspects should be put to the test to see if Sand truly needs to be banned without bias. This and the opinions expressing fact-based arguments that supply examples, explanations, and reason really should be the opinions heeded. These are players offering better to great advice on how to make the UU tier better. Basically, anyone to have replied in the last 3-5 days and have collectively more than 4 paragraphs to support their stance should have their opinions heard. The general stance on Sand that "it needs to go, as soon as possible", without the effort of researching a sandless UU metagame should be generally ignored. It offers little reason as to why Sand should go, and normally has little support.
However, we must remember that sand is only a playstyle, and doesn't dictate the metagame. This is BW UU, not DPP OU. If the Senate and the majority of the tier cannot live to see a metagame without Sand, then by all means, ban it. I don't play sand, and have played against it, and I see no issue with it. But up until that point, I see there to be no reason for Sand to be more than suspect outside of personal preference, de-warranting the need for a ban.
