Would banning Cloyster and unbanning King’s Rock ever be considered?
My understanding is this goes against tiering policy. For example, Houndstone was initially banned and not Last Respects because Last Respects was only broken on Houndstone. Once Basculegion received Last Respects, now Last Respects was broken on multiple Pokémon and thus we unbanned Hounstone and banned Last Respects.
Likewise, any Pokémon can use King’s Rock, yet it is only broken on Cloyster, so shouldn’t we ban Cloyster? And then if (for example) Maushold was also broken with King’s Rock, we’d then ban King’s Rock and unban Cloyster?
Obviously the reason I bring this up is because of the sleep ban. As I see it, one could approach sleep as being either uncompetitive, overpowered, or against tiering policy (sleep clause mod). Whether no action was taken, action was taken against sleep, or action was taken against certain abusers seemed tricky and something that should be decided by the community. However, sleep was quick banned because the sleep clause mod isn’t consistent with tiering policy (a decision I agree with).
My point is that if a controversial quick ban is enacted in the name of tiering policy, shouldn’t our tiering policy be consistent (which it’s not with Cloyster/King’s Rock)? Otherwise it comes across as people in charge picking and choosing when they want to apply tiering policy.
Ban Cloyster and Unban King’s Rock