5/6 Doctors agree Russian Roulette is totally safe
The reason that there's a higher bar to be reached for moves to be banned rather than pokemon is simple: we tier pokemon, not moves.this is doing the same thing I said. No, it is not basic knowledge, obvious or even necessarily correct that this makes sense. If I asked pretty much anyone I know this prompt:
"You have to ban either the entire Pokemon, or the uncompetitive move that makes the Pokemon broken." They will answer the move.
A better example is Last Respects, a move that basically the entire community was like "Well we have to play dumb and pretend that there is ambiguousness that this shitmon is only Ubers because of the move."
Which honestly was reverse logic anyways because if anything, Basculegion being a good Pokemon makes it a much worse example, being an actually competent Pokemon without Last Respects.
This part of Smogon Tiering Framework assumes people are incorrect, dumb, and do not know things.
The entire slippery slope argument is also the same thing. "What if people are dumb and do this thing after doing this?"
Instead of us just listening to an old policy rigidly, I feel like the community should be trusted to make the game better. Clearly people do not want to ban an entire Pokemon because of a shitty secondary effect for the game on one signature move.
What makes Sneasler broken are obviously uncompetitive elements that are not directly tied to the Pokemon. You know this. I know this. We basically all know this.
But by policy we have to act very stupid, and that an 80 BP move that other than these uncompetitive elements would not be picked, and therefore make the Pokemon not broken, is actually something we cannot even think to comprehend. What if Dire Claw was not broken?! We will never find out because it will never be on another Pokemon this generation, and another meta tool, Pokemon people were excited to use, play with, and seems otherwise pretty fine; must be entirely banned, alas old nerds that wrote things on the internet would curl their hand in disgust.
It's simpler to ban pokemon to other tiers, and simple is best. Until it's proven that a single move/ability/mechanic is making multiple (but not all) pokemon broken mostly on its own, it's simpler just to ban the mon. There needs to be a reason why we wouldn't let darkshifu back but without wicked blow, or let palafin back without jet punch, etc etc. It is better simply to ban darkshifu/palafin, the pokemon, rather than try to tier moves.
Is there collateral damage to this approach? Absolutely. But what would an OU tier with no "collateral damage" look like? "Calyrex ghost rider in OU just no stabs, kyogre just no water moves, ho-oh but no regen or boots, etc etc. And to make ho-oh balanced in UU, it can't use sacred fire or brave bird down there on top of OU restrictions." Who actually thinks of these restrictions? How do we get the community to vote on these? When do we get the time to suspect test all these restrictions? When will the metagame have time to settle, with every mon being modified to work in every tier, because we try to tier moves and not mons?
I think it is better to accept the collateral damage of banning an entire pokemon and keep things simple.