WebBowser , keep in mind that "suspects will be reintroduced into the tier from least-likely-to-be-broken to most likely". Stuff like Weavile and Diggersby will probably be among the first to be suspect tested so I don't think you should worry about the meta adapting too much without them. Tbh I think these bans are justified given that as far as I understand the new tiering system this is the only way to have a Pokemon suspected, at least for a while. Weavile and Diggersby are definitely problematic Pokemons that threaten entire playstyles; while they don't appear outright broken they are suspect-worthy and banning them for a couple of weeks seems a reasonable decision when the alternative is that we can't do anything about them at all for the months it takes to suspect all the other obviously broken stuff.
Note that I never argued that "quickbans" as a whole are bad. Kyub, Lando-I, and Manaphy were obviously broken and made walling darn near impossible, much more so then Weavile, Diggersby, Scolopede, or anyone else in BL could possibly claim. I am not against the council banning things which are obviously broken without a suspect test, hence why I was among the many who rejoiced at the megakanga ban in OU. However, many of the folks in BL, especially the more recent bans, are far from "obviously broken" and almost certainly, given the arguments that I have seen so far, what I would call "arguably broken", as in these guys are powerful enough to be suspected, but not so overwhelmingly powerful to be permanently* banned from UU without a suspect test. Nobody disagrees with the above, not myself, and not the UU council if I am interpreting their decisions correctly.
*permanently here meaning "Until a significant shift in the metagame occurs", usually caused by a new generation.
The point of contention is this (correct me if I'm wrong): Should we, or should we not during this beta phase, temporarily remove things that are "arguably broken" with the intent of suspecting them later? My argument for "no" is that I am afraid that the premature removal of "arguably broken" pokemon will influence the metagame in such a way that if they were reintroduced at a later date, the metagame will be inadequately prepared to deal with them during the suspect test and that will cause the votes to be unfairly biased towards keeping them banned.
So far, this is the only argument I have heard on this question, and therefore I am biased towards "no". Therefore, I would like to hear other arguments about this.
Also, I lack a twitter/mabit/whatever-the-heck-that-hashtag-is-for account, so sadly I cannot follow them on that hashtag or link you all provided me with.
*edit*
or maybe I can, lol. Ty for the correction Kava. :)
Last edited: