This is unnacurate, each new game makes tiers shift. Evidently the formats aren't purely dependant on GF or anything like that, but to think Smogon's tiers get their legitimacy by being completly independant is delirious. I think that the opposite is true, the tier system works because it brings balance and it stays true to the spirit of the game. And arguably there is no tier closer to the game itself than Ubers, since it doesn't embrace as many bannings. Then again, this is merely an anecdotic point and not and argument that has direct bearings in our current discussion, but since it got addressed twice, I thought I would clarify.
Firstly, your partial quotes leave out the majority of my argument. My point about our tiers being independent was in direct reference to VGC being the only directly endorsed metagame. We make up arbitrary rules, tiers and clause. Even if a newly released game shifts these rules, they are still entirely designed and applied by smogon players. Nintendo does not release bullet punch scizor to make it viable for OU play on smogon, as they only endorse one competitive aspect of the video games.
My claim, as you call it, was meant to target players who are tempted to vote for or against a particulary suspect by principle. As you stated yourself, everyone should choose use their experience to test if the metagame was decent enough, had enough different threats and was fun enough to play, if the threats seemed fair and balanced or if the luck factor was sent through the roof by using those moves. Whether the moves are acceptable in the format or not, should not be purely based in a context of "how good" the format currently is, but also on how the testing goes. Since the Ubers format is actually a very good one, the temptation of leaving it as it is "because it's good already", may be appealing to some. I was just asking people to judge by your experience in the ladder and not to rely too heavily in the previous format -which is bound to happen to some level anyways-.
I don't see how this is applicable at all, since you are stating that players should decide for themselves, which is exactly what this incredibly broad suspect testing process is intended to do, and has done so far. People posting their opinions, based on actual testing and first hand experience, gives them the right to say "'howgood'" a strategy, pokemon, or move is in ubers.
This goes to prove that OHKO moves bring some valid strategies that can flourish into the metagame. If it was just about the novelty value or the strategies that will phase out, the OHKO experience would be pointless to unban, but when good strategies settle they actually cause important and meaningful metagame shifts it's worth exploring and not purely and argument about hax.
Since you've played against those threats I feel like asking you directly: are those spinners too broken for Ubers?
Since you've essentially reversed the positon you took in your first post, that OHKO moves would die out because of metagame shifts and admitted that a good strategy's existence can alter the metagame there's not too much to say. The intelligent use of OHKO moves results in OHKOs that are actually statistically likely versus defensive and balanced teams, so it has never been "and not purely and argument about hax".
If you refer the the "Portrait of an Uber" post by Jumpman16:jump:, you'll realize that excadrill fits the bill, going by standard ou banning procedure as you later state you want, in more ways than one. It beats a significant portion of its counters with little effort, cannot be predicted against safely, and makes it much easier for teammates to win by removing the hazards that let some uber pokemon be checked.
Did I claim Stall was dominant? If I did it, I'll gladly drop that point.
Once again you've essentially agreed with me. The diversity I harped on in my post you quoted certain parts of means on its own that no one style is dominant, that they are all viable and capable of winning consistently at the highest level of play. The fact that OHKO removes this is not simply an indicator that we want things to remain the same, as you seem to be convinced, but is the best show of these moves potential power, and the metagame results that come as a
result of the threat this power allows them to pose.
This argument seems to be making the claim that since Ubers has an static pool of pokes, it should benefit from a different set of considerations when it comes to the banning and unbanning process. I'm just advocating for applying the standard Smogon criteria to rule this potential unbanning.
Some people seem to think that the clause unbanning is an special kind of unbanning and should be threated differently somehow. This touches to the principle logic I refuse to endulge when it comes to this discussion. I don't think you're really claming that though.
I think that your argument is that the unbanning would make the metagame less "healthy", that it will have a negative impact in the meta. As far as I know, there is some tolerance to these "unhealthy" moves, is the new format still healthy enough to warrant nice interactions? Does the unbanning bring new and relevant threats into the mix? If the move was unhealthy and added nothing to the game it shouldn't be done at all, but by your own admission, lifting the clause actually brings relevant threats into the meta, so this is not a point easily dismissed.
We have applied the same exact criteria, as I mentioned above, for suspect testing as the other tiers do. Once again, you've both misconstrued and yet agreed with my original point. Through testing and actual experience, many users have realized that relying on defensively oriented switch ins, or even carrying pokemon that let OHKO users set up, is a mistake in this metagame. So, the pool of viable pokemon, and the playstyles these pokemon enable, is reduced. If you consider that the only viable ohko user who doesn't already see significant play is Lapras, as gliscor, kyogre, excadrill, and even gastrodon see use, then the admission of these moves into ubers
objectively lowers the potential diversity for a player aiming to beat all team types consistently.