Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
* Fire coverage is mandatory for Manectric, that's why he doesn't afraid of Grass type like Amoonguss or Celebi. Signal beam isn't bad to touch celebi yes, but for the rest ...
* I'm not agree at all, I'll explain myself:
If we look the stall teams in UU, for example the stall teams of pif: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/usum-sample-teams.3621217/page-4#post-8135067 :
In every team, there is 1 pokemon to take the uturn of the band and another to check the setup set. So Stall team doesn't fear Scizor at all.
Moreover, Scizor is viable in stall too, so Stall teams get a nerf with a Scizor ban, not a huge buff.
I found your arguments good except for these two arguments.
* Fire coverage is mandatory for Manectric, that's why he doesn't afraid of Grass type like Amoonguss or Celebi. Signal beam isn't bad to touch celebi yes, but for the rest ...
* I'm not agree at all, I'll explain myself:
If we look the stall teams in UU, for example the stall teams of pif: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/usum-sample-teams.3621217/page-4#post-8135067 :
In every team, there is 1 pokemon to take the uturn of the band and another to check the setup set. So Stall team doesn't fear Scizor at all.
Moreover, Scizor is viable in stall too, so Stall teams get a nerf with a Scizor ban, not a huge buff.
The point isn’t actually whether or not stall teams are destroyed by Scizor (they’d be a pretty poor defensive build if they got completely trashed by an S Rank threat), the point is that Scizor is a big part of what forces these teams to run at minimum Regenerator+Unaware, so they’re as prepared as possible vs all Scizor sets. Now these traits are useful on stall outside of Scizor, especially Regen, so it’s quite possible that not a lot changes with regards to the structure of stall builds. However removing one of the biggest driving factors behind running both Unaware+Regen means that in the future we might see people experiment with not running one or both, and more successfully than in the recent past. As for Scizor on stall, it has been used in the past, but in my experience it’s a choice that doesn’t result in the most solid builds compared to what we’ve seen recently in terms of stall builds. I definitely think a potential Scizor loss helps defensive teams more than it hurts them.
Agree with your take on the Manectric point, I said the same myself.
Those who are arguing not to remove scizor from the standpoint that the tier is balanced are actually mistaken about the tiering policy. We have no more of a responsibility to ensure UU is "healthy" at the time gen 8 rolls around than we have a responsibility to ensure RU remains "healthy" when we consider bans.
Similarly, those who would tell you to not to vote based on your personal preference on whether you enjoy playing with scizor or not are also fundamentally misunderstanding point of even bringing scizor to a vote at all. The argument that "one should vote in the direction of a 'healthy' tier, regardless of whether it makes the tier more or less fun to play" includes in its statement an implicit assumption that the "health" of a tier is the most important feature of it – more important than if the tier is actually enjoyable.
This is, of course, bullshit. The fact that mega sableye was banned so overwhelmingly is evidence of the fact that people want a fun and rewarding tier over a tier that's balanced on paper and nauseating to play.
What I'm getting at is, all this talk of the "health" of the tier with or without scizor is pretty pointless. If you're one of these people who enjoys using scizor, you'll vote no ban because you like it and argue through your teeth something about how "it's not broken checking broken, it's very good checking other very good mons see it's all very balanced and healthy".
But if you're one of the people who has known since the start of gen 7 how disproportionately powerful scizor is compared to the rest of UU, how it singlehandedly prevents mons such as slurpuff, cloyster, and forretress from seeing the light of day, how it shows up in 90% of games and provides the wincon, how it dissuades outsiders from UU from ever joining this static and boring tier, then you'll probably vote ban, and have no issues banning the rest of the obviously broken pokemon that pollute the UU S ranks.
Those who are arguing not to remove scizor from the standpoint that the tier is balanced are actually mistaken about the tiering policy. We have no more of a responsibility to ensure UU is "healthy" at the time gen 8 rolls around than we have a responsibility to ensure RU remains "healthy" when we consider bans.
This is wrong, why would UU tier leaders not care about creating the best possible metagame? Our bans barely effect lower tiers anyway since anything that’s broken here is almost surely broken in a less powerful tier, the only exception I can think of is Drought with Ninetales. The goal of tiering is to ensure the more skillful player wins as much as possible, so how are we not responsible for this just because a new game comes out?
Similarly, those who would tell you to not to vote based on your personal preference on whether you enjoy playing with scizor or not are also fundamentally misunderstanding point of even bringing scizor to a vote at all. The argument that "one should vote in the direction of a 'healthy' tier, regardless of whether it makes the tier more or less fun to play" includes in its statement an implicit assumption that the "health" of a tier is the most important feature of it – more important than if the tier is actually enjoyable.
This is, of course, bullshit. The fact that mega sableye was banned so overwhelmingly is evidence of the fact that people want a fun and rewarding tier over a tier that's balanced on paper and nauseating to play.
Being unfun had 0 effect on Sableye’s ban, at least it should not have. Sableye was banned because, quite frankly, it was cancer to play against and warped games into mindgames around hazards. This falls under the “unhealthy” portion of Smogon’s tiering policy, which is admittedly the weakest reason to ban something. However, the majority of UU agreed that Magic Bounce on a Pokémon like Sableye was too unhealthy.
What I'm getting at is, all this talk of the "health" of the tier with or without scizor is pretty pointless. If you're one of these people who enjoys using scizor, you'll vote no ban because you like it and argue through your teeth something about how "it's not broken checking broken, it's very good checking other very good mons see it's all very balanced and healthy".
But if you're one of the people who has known since the start of gen 7 how disproportionately powerful scizor is compared to the rest of UU, how it singlehandedly prevents mons such as slurpuff, cloyster, and forretress from seeing the light of day, how it shows up in 90% of games and provides the wincon, how it dissuades outsiders from UU from ever joining this static and boring tier, then you'll probably vote ban, and have no issues banning the rest of the obviously broken pokemon that pollute the UU S ranks.
This seems targeted at me so I feel compelled to reply. I’d appreciate reasons as to why Scizor is broken and so much stronger than the rest of the tier that it warrants banning rather than simply hinting at what I said is wrong.
The last paragraph is just hyperbole and wrong. Scizor is not on 90% of teams. It’s high usage, if anything, is a symptom of power creep. With so many powerful Pokémon, players will seek Pokémon that compress many roles in one slot (see Landorus in OU, Metagross in RU, Slowbro in NU while it existed).
Why do we give a shit about how Scizor affects the viability of shitmons? Good Pokémon affect the viability of others, that’s been the case since RBY. Let’s not pretend like these Pokémon that were considered bad in ORAS are going to see a resurgence because we ban Scizor. Lastly, if you’re gonna claim that Scizor is single handedly dissuading new players from the second largest current gen, you’re gonna need some proof.
Scizor is too versatile and it's very hard to cover all his existant sets, no matter what playstyle we choose. He is too powerful and restrictive.
Ban scizor would impact enormously the tier, leading to many others suspects like Mega Altaria, Latias, Terrakion which could be very interesting. Currently, these pokemons - in addition to scizor - centralize (too much) the underused. Some will find that normal, others will say that it's not relevant few months close to the next gen. I do not agree, the tier is pretty sick and has been stagnating for too long.
Moreover, I agree with Clefable, an unheathly pokemon checking other unheathly pokemons doesn't mean he is heathly.
The last paragraph is just hyperbole and wrong. Scizor is not on 90% of teams. It’s high usage, if anything, is a symptom of power creep. With so many powerful Pokémon, players will seek Pokémon that compress many roles in one slot (see Landorus in OU, Metagross in RU, Slowbro in NU while it existed).
Scizor usage on April 1630 stats = 40%
Scizor usage on April 1760 stats = 47.4%
Scizor usage on last SPL stats = 44.8%
(These numbers are based NOT on Elo, but Glicko. There is no small sample size problem except for possibly SPL).
You misread Mengy's post, he said Scizor was used in 90% of games, not 90% of teams.
The probability of Scizor being in a game = (1 - the probability of it NOT being on both teams) = (1 - (around 50 something percent squared) = around 70%
Therefore Scizor is in about 70% of games. This is a FACTUAL statement. LIKE if you LIKE FACTS!
It is my intention in this post to first of all clarify why the majority of anti-ban arguments are 1. in bad faith and 2. inapplicable in a variety of scenarios.
First of all, there are two arguments the opposition heavily articulates upon;
1. The argument of time-scarcity
2. The argument of consequence
The argument of time-scarcity implies that banning Scizor would be unfruitful due to the lack of time left before the start of a new meta being introduced with the release of Pokemon Sword and Shield winter this year. However, I would like to appoint to you a fragment of a post made by UU moderator Hogg:
"Regarding the timing of any suspects, I touched on our planned schedule in one of my earlier replies, but our plan is to run a two week test for Scizor to conclude on Sunday, June 2, 2019. If the community decides to ban Scizor, we will immediately proceed with a Mega Altaria test, set to conclude on Sunday, June 16, 2019, just before UU Open begins. I am working with Pearl and the UU Open hosts to ensure that if this happens, we can conclude any necessary voting prior to round 1 going up. From there, we will allow the tier to settle for the first two rounds of UU Open, and determine if anything else requires a suspect test."
This statement renders the argument completely invalid.
The argument of consequence has two implications: One of which is invalid, and the other of which is in bad faith.
The first implication is that it is entirely predictable what the consequences of a Scizor ban would be. This is simply not true; it is impossible to, purely based on speculation, know whether a Pokemon will be broken in a meta game. For example, Raikou dropping to RU. The general public feared it to be much too strong for the tier, yet it now comfortably resides in A-. Or, one that most here will be acquainted with, when Zeraora dropped to UU, which is now ranked B. This goes to show that a tier can adapt to a threat in ways that one might not be able to predict looking from afar.
The second implication is that other Pokemon becoming broken due to a ban should be of relevance in discussing the matter of said ban. This is in bad faith, for it implies that a situation of multiple broken Pokemon keeping each other in check is a healthy, balanced situation, whereas it is quite the contrary; a tier requiring one or a small group of Pokemon just to keep the tier balanced is over-centralizing, noninclusive, and therefore unhealthy. It is our duty as voters not to decide whether banning the Pokemon in question would have complications on the health of the tier, but rather if the Pokemon in question himself has complications in health. It is because of this that, when one argues against a ban for its consequence, he is arguing against the general health of the tier, even if the consequence is beneficial.
I would like to conclude this post by firstly saying that of course I am open to discussion, and secondly that I do not necessarily believe that all people voting No Ban on Scizor are incorrect by default. I am simply of the opinion that in general your arguments are, for lack of a better word, absolute dogshit. I am seriously open to convincing but it saddens me that a tier full of so many talented players resides on arguments with worse infrastructure than a two hundred year old rotting house. Please prove to me that you are the intellectual players you seem to be.
I wouldn’t say that statement renders it completely invalid, I’d ask more if you’re comfortable with progressing with suspect tests that quickly? Are you honestly happy to potentially ban one of the longest standing and most influential pokemon in the tier, and then suspect another extremely influential pokemon instantly? This literally wouldn’t be considered an option if we had more time but to me this is rushing through suspects in the hope that something good comes out the other side. I understand that is the plan that has been laid out, and I’m glad the tier leaders have said exactly what it is, but I’m simply not comfortable with it. I don’t love the current tier, but I certainly don’t have any real dislike for it so talking about taking such actions to completely rip up the current tier is naturally going to alarm me and as such it’s my right to argue against them and vote against them when the time comes. I’ve seen ORAS UU and I don’t want any risk of a repeat. Sorry if my opinions are “absolute dogshit”, lol.
true about Zeraora though! Never forget that Adaam said it would be better than Manectric and would mean you didn’t need to run Ground types anymore!!
I wouldn’t say that statement renders it completely invalid, I’d ask more if you’re comfortable with progressing with suspect tests that quickly? Are you honestly happy to potentially ban one of the longest standing and most influential pokemon in the tier, and then suspect another extremely influential pokemon instantly? This literally wouldn’t be considered an option if we had more time but to me this is rushing through suspects in the hope that something good comes out the other side. I understand that is the plan that has been laid out, and I’m glad the tier leaders have said exactly what it is, but I’m simply not comfortable with it. I don’t love the current tier, but I certainly don’t have any real dislike for it so talking about taking such actions to completely rip up the current tier is naturally going to alarm me and as such it’s my right to argue against them and vote against them when the time comes. I’ve seen ORAS UU and I don’t want any risk of a repeat. Sorry if my opinions are “absolute dogshit”, lol.
true about Zeraora though! Never forget that Adaam said it would be better than Manectric and would mean you didn’t need to run Ground types anymore!!
Although I agree with you that it may not be able to benefit the tier much before the end of the metagame in its time as main metagame, let me remind you again of my disempowerment of the argument of consequence 2: it is not our task to decide whether the ban will have good consequence to the tier, but rather whether Scizor in the tier is innately unbalanced. Therefore it is not of importance whether we have enough time left to actually implement everything, as it falls outside of the criteria we set to measure in.
Edit: Also, I never claimed anyone’s opinion to be dogshit. Rather just their argumentation. Huge difference.
Those arguments are valid at 100%
If Scizor is banned, there will be some insane consequences on the tier and it will be a pain in the ass to fix the Underused after that. Scizor is the most dominant Pokémon in the tier and it balances the tier a lot.
You can't say that a tier without Scizor will be OK because it's not the case. Rock Polish Terrakion and DD Mega Altaria are going to be impossible to Revenge Kill. Latias gonna pressure the tier a lot more than now. It's not a "small speculation" when the Pokemon is used more than 40% in the tier, when it's able to check a plethora of Pokemon and act as a great RK. Like come on, do you play regularly the tier to state this things ?
Those arguments are valid at 100%
If Scizor is banned, there will be some insane consequences on the tier and it will be a pain in the ass to fix the Underused after that. Scizor is the most dominant Pokémon in the tier and it balances the tier a lot.
You can't say that a tier without Scizor will be OK because it's not the case. Rock Polish Terrakion and DD Mega Altaria are going to be impossible to Revenge Kill. Latias gonna pressure the tier a lot more than now. It's not a "small speculation" when the Pokemon is used more than 40% in the tier, when it's able to check a plethora of Pokemon and act as a great RK. Like come on, do you play regularly the tier to state this things ?
It is not my job as a voter to decide whether or not the meta will be ok without scizor. It is simply my job to decide whether or not scizor himself is ok in the tier. Consequence and time left over are factors falling outside of the criteria which I must consider as voter when I decide whether or not to ban a pokemon, but I’m repeating myself. To all people wanting to discuss with me read my posts thoroughly before replying to them.
Although I agree with you that it may not be able to benefit the tier much before the end of the metagame in its time as main metagame, let me remind you again of my disempowerment of the argument of consequence 2: it is not our task to decide whether the ban will have good consequence to the tier, but rather whether Scizor in the tier is innately unbalanced. Therefore it is not of importance whether we have enough time left to actually implement everything, as it falls outside of the criteria we set to measure in.
Edit: Also, I never claimed anyone’s opinion to be dogshit. Rather just their argumentation. Huge difference.
Why isn’t it? There’s no one holding a gun to anyone’s head while they vote, any individual has the right to vote based on what they believe is correct. It’s all very well to reference tiering policy etc. but when people have to play this tier in the long term in different tournaments such as UUPL and UU Classic, it’s natural that this kind of thinking is going to come into play compared to suspects that take place much earlier in the generation when there’s more time to correct any potential unbalances triggered by bans. I mentioned this in an earlier post but if you look at the OP it explicitly states this:
with the purpose of allowing the whole community to decide whether or not banning Scizor would be in the tier's best interest.
Obviously interpretations are ambiguous but to me this is giving license to the community to make this decision based on what they think is best for the tier in the long term, as opposed to keeping it solely about Scizor as an individual pokemon and how broken it is and otherwise, although that’s definitely a huge consideration in this process of course.
After tanking some games at the end, still managed to get requirements on voting on whether we keep sciz or not.
My vote is BAN
I just want to see a new future in UU, I honestly don't think it's broken but I'd like to see new things happen to the tier of UU. See ya later UU community!
Finally, he's revealed. You don't know how confusing it was to see Bhris Brown and UUSS Bhris Brown on at the same time . Anyways, I'm just going to give a few pointers on why I think Scizor should stay.
Scizor is a fantastic glue mon on many teams, and capable of running many sets. We all know this and have known this for a while. What about this statement has any relevancy to this suspect though? The fact the it offers so much to a team, that building would be even MORE restricting, especially when trying to keep things like Latias in check. Now I'm not saying that the reason it should stay is "broken checking broken". No, I am particularly not a fan of that policy.
See, when trying to keep non-restraining things like say Mega Aerodactyl in check, Scizor in 1 slot and a Ground in another is enough to keep it in check. Now remove Scizor from the equation. You now still need that ground, as well as a scarfer that can outpace it, which is sometimes a little tricky to slot into every team. This means you have to go out of your way to check one mon that Scizor would check that alongside 8 others in a team.
tl;dr: The tier needs Scizor in order for teambuilding to a little easier to pull off as a whole, considering how fantastic of a glue mon it is, as well as not having it would mean dedicating several slots to mons that only check 1 or 2 mons, compared to 1 slot being taken by a mon that can check so many threats.
Why isn’t it? There’s no one holding a gun to anyone’s head while they vote, any individual has the right to vote based on what they believe is correct. It’s all very well to reference tiering policy etc. but when people have to play this tier in the long term in different tournaments such as UUPL and UU Classic, it’s natural that this kind of thinking is going to come into play compared to suspects that take place much earlier in the generation when there’s more time to correct any potential unbalances triggered by bans. I mentioned this in an earlier post but if you look at the OP it explicitly states this:
with the purpose of allowing the whole community to decide whether or not banning Scizor would be in the tier's best interest.
Obviously interpretations are ambiguous but to me this is giving license to the community to make this decision based on what they think is best for the tier in the long term, as opposed to keeping it solely about Scizor as an individual pokemon and how broken it is and otherwise, although that’s definitely a huge consideration in this process of course.
You must understand that my argument is one of morals. I cannot stop you from voting in a way different to the one I explained in my post. I simply don’t have the power to do so.
However, that does not mean I cannot derive what the manner is in which people SHOULD vote.
Let me put it this way for you;
If banning scizor would have too much consequence that has underlying meaning, namely 1. that scizor is keeping the tier in check and 2. that the tier needs to be kept in check. 2. is the main issue as it implies that the tier is in fact riddled with unbalance, and that the only reason it remains in balance is the huge weight on one pokemon: scizor. The reason this is dangerous is 1. as it allows the tier to be percieved as balanced whereas it is not. Therefore what I am saying is that, when one argues for a ban, arguing for the negative consequences of the ban (such as terrakion and mega altaria becoming broken) is per definition arguing against the health of the tier, as you are then choosing to cure the symptoms and not the disease.
Finally, he's revealed. You don't know how confusing it was to see Bhris Brown and UUSS Bhris Brown on at the same time . Anyways, I'm just going to give a few pointers on why I think Scizor should stay.
Scizor is a fantastic glue mon on many teams, and capable of running many sets. We all know this and have known this for a while. What about this statement has any relevancy to this suspect though? The fact the it offers so much to a team, that building would be even MORE restricting, especially when trying to keep things like Latias in check. Now I'm not saying that the reason it should stay is "broken checking broken". No, I am particularly not a fan of that policy.
See, when trying to keep non-restraining things like say Mega Aerodactyl in check, Scizor in 1 slot and a Ground in another is enough to keep it in check. Now remove Scizor from the equation. You now still need that ground, as well as a scarfer that can outpace it, which is sometimes a little tricky to slot into every team. This means you have to go out of your way to check one mon that Scizor would check that alongside 8 others in a team.
tl;dr: The tier needs Scizor in order for teambuilding to a little easier to pull off as a whole, considering how fantastic of a glue mon it is, as well as not having it would mean dedicating several slots to mons that only check 1 or 2 mons, compared to 1 slot being taken by a mon that can check so many threats.
I definitively think that you're taking way too much into account the tiering policy and that you do not take into account the context on this suspect test when you should. Of course our aim is to make the best tier as possible but as a player who plays since a long time in Underused, I have to take into account the fact that we're not at the beginning of the 7th Generation but at the end of it since we only have 6 months left.
This is the framework we have for this suspect and I do believe that every players should take it into account because we don't have a lot of time to fix the tier if Scizor has to be banned. I don't want to spend the following months trying to fix a broken and unstable tier because some dudes though that Scizor may be too much for the tier. You need to think about long-term consequences because in our case we just have 6 months and there is some major tournaments which are going to happen. You need to think about the best environment for the next following months and for tournaments as well. I don't want to see Mega Altaria, Terrakion or Latias tear apart Underused during 6 months because if it happens, you can count on me to remember what I’m saying right now and that we shouldn't have banned Scizor. This Pokemon is a glue-mon which balances the tier a lot and we need it for the stability of it.
You can say whatever you want but in my opinion, if you put aside the context, then you didn't understand the stakes of this suspect test..
It may seem like I'm implying, but I am not. When I said it helps to keep alot in check, I didn't say only broken things, I said everything that Scizor checks is too valuable.
See, when trying to keep non-restraining things like say Mega Aerodactyl in check, Scizor in 1 slot and a Ground in another is enough to keep it in check. Now remove Scizor from the equation. You now still need that ground, as well as a scarfer that can outpace it, which is sometimes a little tricky to slot into every team. This means you have to go out of your way to check one mon that Scizor would check that alongside 8 others in a team.
man i swear some of y'all are making this so much more unnecessarily difficult on yourselves than it should be lol. i understand this is quite literally the most crucial suspect test that uu is having this generation but holy shit son calm yo damn tits
scizor’s been in this tier for three years, it shouldn’t take a fucking understanding of tiering policy that i would say a good 50% of voters (myself included) couldn’t give two shits about to have an educated take on whether or not scizor should be banned lol. unless you’re someone who does something boneheaded like coinflipping a vote (dammit yifeng :( ), it quite honestly doesn’t matter how you make your vote. additionally, as a community and despitr what i claimed above, we’ve done a much better job this generation as opposed to oras keeping broken shit out of this tier so it’s not as much of some of the community being ignorant of policy at times, but rather some of you being excessively worried about whatever possible implications this test would bring to this tier.
now do some of us a favor and take some deep breaths. it's not that fucking difficult.
I hereby give everyone in this suspect test permission to vote on this suspect based on what they feel will lead to an overall healthier tier, however they might define that.
EDIT: In all seriousness: our tiering guidelines are meant to provide a framework for how we can discuss whether or not a Pokemon is broken or uncompetitive. They are not meant to be a straightjacket that prevents us from thinking about the overall health and playability of the tier. We do ask you to specifically consider the Pokemon that's being suspected (in this case Scizor), but that means considering all its aspects good and bad, including how it impacts the meta overall.
As far as I'm concerned, if you got reqs, vote however tf you want. It may not necessarily be "wise" to do something like base it on a coin flip, but you've earned the right to base it on that.
That said
I'm voting "Do not ban". I have yet to be convinced that Scizor leaving would be good for the tier, let alone Scizor itself being broken. It's the most used Pokemon in the tier for a reason,but being at the top of the totem pole =/= broke (or "unhealthy" if we're using our buzzwords) IDK how many people here were truly on the fence in regards to ban/do not ban, but I get the feeling many of the voters (self included) knew what they would be voting long before the suspect even began. The people who want Scizor gone have wanted Scizor gone for years; nothing recent has come up that would lead me to believe that Scizor is a problem now, and I didn't feel that way about Scizor anyway.
I've been playing UU for the last couple of years on a more casual basis and really want to give my thoughts about this suspect test. I don't intend to vote as I usually play on unregistered accounts nor intend of getting reqs . IF I COULD VOTE, I would vote BAN (at this point I pretty certain it won't get ban).
Scizor is a mon that get to fulfil so many roles without having to dedicate to them as per say other mons in UU. All of its counters are usually unreliable (not to mention Scizor's move pool helps a lot). Scizor primarily only has to use Bullet Punch and U-turn in most situations and is rewarded way more than being out played (on a 50/50 - the amount of times I have won this prediction to get nothing is heartbreaking). Scizor really, REALLY deters the use of mons not in UU - especially Scizor lure mons.
Not necessarily to have but It's undeniable good and without having to do much to have it. The obvious result of banning is that M-Alt and Terrakion will have a suspect test. Even so does this warrant banning Sciz - imo hell yes. The real question is that re-stabilising UU after the chaos of banning the tier's gluemon. Using Scizor doesn't require as nearly enough skill in comparison to outplaying it in most cases. If it's here just to check primarily M-Alt + Terrakion and maintain what I feel is an unhealthy meta that rewards a glue mon's design than skilled plays (for UU) then I'll gladly would want to have more suspect test and meta adapting. It's not like Sword and Shield comes out that there won't be suspect test for previous gens.
M-Aero and Lati aren't only check by Scizor...I feel like that people are overreacting to these particulate cases. In the past 4 days I have made alts (1 per day) that tend to get around 1500ish points - none of which had Scizors in the teams I were using so UU is playablewith Scizor in it but I think it would eventually lead to a much healthier meta banning it.
It may seem like I'm implying, but I am not. When I said it helps to keep alot in check, I didn't say only broken things, I said everything that Scizor checks is too valuable.
See that example there, as I think you obviously breezed over it.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was not criticizing you I was just wondering what your elaboration was as to why scizor himself was not actually broken.
. Anyways, I'm just going to give a few pointers on why I think Scizor should stay. 
