I actually really agree. I've always advocated banning the broken Pokemon rather than the element that makes it broken, except for cases such as evasion clause or OHKO clause where it is just that, a clause instead of a ban, because it is such a centralizing aspect. Any move, item, or ability that benefits a Pokemon should be considered as part of the Pokemon as a whole. While no one is denying that Gengar isn't broken without its Mega Stone, the Pokemon benefits from it enough that it warrants banning the Pokemon, the way, if say, Scarf Excadrill became incredibly super powerful and amazing in the meta, Excadrill would be banned, not Choice Scarf, but the reason we ban the Gengarite is because Gengar is the only Pokemon that benefits from Gengarite, nothing else does. This was just an instinct because we automatically think of the times we used to use Gengar, and that it isn't broken without its Mega Stone, so we just need to ban the stone. But the point is, while that item is making that Pokemon broken, it is the Pokemons qualities (in terms of how the game is programmed, such as stats) that determine whether it is broken, and if the stone makes Gengar broken, then Gengar is broken anyway, the way if Multiscale made Lugia broken (which isn't it, but as an example), or Air Balloon or Choice Band or any item, move, or ability made anything broken, the Pokemon benefiting it should be banned. A simple way of expressing this is banning Politoed instead of Drizzle or DrizzleSwim, because it's supportive ability that is created by utilizing Drizzle makes other Pokemon broken, making Politoed worth of a ban. This is obviously just and example, but my point is, complexity is avoided simply by banning the Pokemon because of the aspects that make it broken, whether offensively, defensively, or supportively.
