Funny that you mention that example, considering it was a decision made by a very select group of people (basically, the tier leader and the few users that agreed with him), there was no open discussion, and the time between announcing the suspect vote and the actual vote was so short that nobody besides those few users was able to vote. Furthermore, it ended up being detrimental to the metagame because it wasn't properly tested, and some mons ended up being more broken than ever (Victini).UU suspected Chandelure long after Gen 5 was over. Revisiting metas and appropriately adjusting them after the fact is normal, encouraged, and actually points out that metas are still being governed and reviewed periodically.
I see little-to-no problem with reassessing elements in previous generations and continuing to address potential problems since some of these metas are not dead and continue to develop: example, gen 3 uu.
Exactly the reason why the change should be carried out at the start of the generation, when there's still time to make up for it if turns out to be a mistake.As I stated previously, radical shifts require a long, drawn out process because should we make the wrong decision we impact tens of thousands of players negatively by giving them a less fair metagame. My goal as a UU mod and council member is to fight for fairness and diversity in my tier. Anything else is a secondary concern, including "enjoyment".
Maybe you should try to write less fluffy posts, so that you wouldn't contradict yourself so much...I'm confused, is your problem with SR a Gen 6 thing? Then shouldn't we suspect it in Gen 6?
What's our policy on ''a move that has been 100% necessary in each competitive team for the last 9 years''?I'm not suggesting our current tiering system is perfect, but what you're proposing is so radical, that it would involve changing our policies on these matters. Once again, the onus is on you to prove that this is necessary.
They're ignored because they're not true. Every competitive team uses Stealth Rock, that's an empirical fact as you like to say.I hate to quote myself, but I've made several counter arguments that, for some reason, are being ignored: Not all teams even require hazard control, such as some HO teams which just attempt to plow through the opposing team, often utilizing double switches and aggressive counterplay to force the opponent to not retain enough momentum to place Rocks. That's just one scenario among thousands which introduce VARIABILITY among games. Stealth Rock support is a means to an end in terms of strategy and is just one element of a larger whole to the dynamic additions that Pokemon introduces generation after generation. The fact that you can choose between Blissey's SR or a support coverage adds to the dynamism of Blissey. You propose to take that dynamism away. That's irresponsible without solid reasoning. The onus is not on me to prove this to you, because our system is our system and you are the one that argues to change it.
And if something is on every team, then it's not just a 'support option'. It is true that ''it's a means to an end''. Yeah, the 'end' is winning, because you flat out need Stealth Rock to win a competitive game.
In that case, how do you support banning every 680 BST legendary in the game without testing? We have never actually tried them in OU, so there's no proof that they're broken. We are just banning them based on theory, so your argument doesn't hold.Lastly, regarding theoryhazarding. I'd delete the post of any individual who attempted to theoryhazard, theorymon, or do any kind of non-relevant theorizing as a way of explaining the brokenness of anything. Fire-type SR don't exist, won't exist, so it means absolutely nothing to me. Until it does exist, I will not consider it as an element of a valid argument because it's all theoretical and we live in a world of data and empiricism. Things need to be verifiable in order for you to argue for or against them otherwise you're just speculating, or, even worse, posturing.