I think we are straying from the point here. As far as I can tell this discussion originated out of the argument that if one could tell the difference between mons on a species spam team, it would be easier to deal with and thus not bannable.
In my humble opinion, that’s a pretty poor argument. Teams with 6 mewtwos are bannable not because you can’t tell the difference between the mons, but rather because it takes no skill to make a team of 6 mewtwos, no skill to use it, and yet somehow this complete lack of skill or understanding of the game leads to winning against actual good players.
In my mind we should seek to make the meta game as skill based as possible. If there is a cancerous strat letting people with no BH experience win consistently (like say CFZ spam, assist don, sleep spam, contrary spam, setup spam, or running say 6 mewtwos) my opinion is ban that thing. I think this solidly falls into that category so I’m not sure why we are talking about nicknames.
Who are these elusive "bad players" I keep reading so much about? Name one
verifiably-bad player who successfully "punches up" on the ladder to places they don't belong with Mewtwo spam. Some people may quickly jump to me as an example, but remember that before I started "exploiting" Mewtwo-spam, I was beating many of you--and even getting
reqs with Meloettas, scarfed Zygardes and
level 1 Bellsprouts.
When I first considered running Monospecies, quite a few users actually told me it was a
bad idea. That it could never work, but I wanted the
challenge, so I took the risk. MewtwoMenagerie, an alt that I initially created as an experiment, ultimately went on to reach into the 1760 range on ladder (with 1715 being the highest recorded score) before I decided to let it decay. This isn't a matter of "species spam" being overpowered, this is simply the realization that the investments of both myself, and the monospecies players before me are finally beginning to pay off.
Once you remove me from the equation, your argument gets even
weaker, as most--if not all of the other monospecies players that are consistently performing well on ladder were going to do so anyway (as proven by the occasional low-ladder Regi/TTar spammers that never make a dent). Maybe it's time to consider that people using different strategies than what you're used to doesn't make them bad players, and perhaps it might be possible that different players have different
preferences than you?
Many players seem to be so consumed by their conceptions of how the BH meta
ought to be, that they forget they're still playing
Pokemon. Unless you ban nearly every move and force people to run set mons, abilities, etc., you're always going to encounter something that you don't understand, and may not be equipped to handle. Every strategy
still has a counter, however, and monospecies is no exception to this. Sure, Mewtwo number 4 with Refrige/BDrum/Espeed will one shot your Prank Tina switch-in, but who's forcing you to run that set? If you're having a problem with your usual wall, add a new wall or substitute your old one to cover your weaknesses. This form of perpetual adaptation is the foundation of any serious competition, and without it, stagnation, decay, and eventually, demise, are inevitable. If anything, the fact that the same handful of Tina/wall sets have gone
this long without any meta-altering offensive threats to dethrone them (Not even Diancie and Kyurem are enough to curb the overabundance of these mons) is more uncompetitive than anything. As it currently stands, Monospecies is simply shifting the meta into a newer, healthier direction, wherein defensive players are forced to actually innovate new strategies, rather than recycling the same years-old sets that require little more than a few clicks to splash onto their teams.
The reality of the situation, however, is that these problem users don't genuinely think that Monospecies is overpowered, rather, they just want to see it gone because
they don't like it, and have retroactively attempted to "prettify" their pettiness with laughably pathetic "arguments" that are about as opaque as glass. Unfortunately, since this is such a grassroots/narrative-driven meta, the salty, incoherent ranting that wouldn't fly in any other community backs the moderators into a corner wherein they either cave to these problem users' demands, or face extreme levels of backlash and bitterness that would make the community practically uninhabitable for them.
For that reason alone, I could see the merits of a suspect. As it currently stands, I'm fond of the current staff, and it would be easier for me to find a new strategy or even phantom-out of the meta itself than it would be for them to lose their connection with a community that they cared enough about to moderate. For as adamant as I can be, I know how to put things into perspective, and I believe that in a worst-case scenario, certain actions may have to be taken, even if they aren't in my best interests.
Until that day comes, however, I'll continue to play this format for the same reasons that I began to initially: The beautifully boundless possibilities and potential for expressiveness, for I truly believe that even now, this is the greatest format of them all.