Quickbans felt so necessary this generation because there were so many borderline pokemon that nobody could agree were broken or not. Full-on suspect tests accomplish very little with the playerbase so split and take too much time to suspect each potentially broken element. This is compounded by gamefreak's new DLC releases and dropping of pokemon in the middle of everything. The one thing everyone can agree on is that, to quote finch, we've "stayed around the outskirts of 'good metagame'". Something's wrong, but nobody can agree on how to fix it. I think the only solution is to be a little more liberal with the bans. Think of it this way: it's better to ban something innocent than keep something broken. If we have to sacrifice Sneasler for a metagame without the totally centralizing Kingambit, then we should. And like Schpoonman said, we can always just unban things later if there's enough support. This effectively makes the ban percentage requirement 40%, since the automatic status quo would be banned, and it's 60% unban. This could lead to some probably-ok or flavor-of-the-month pokemon getting banned, but like I said before, that is totally a worthy tradeoff for stability of the metagame.