I've pushed this before, but in light of the recent Shadow Tag ban, I want to try again.
I think it's better to ban Pokémon than to ban anything else.
I have a lot of reasons, so let me go through a few of the biggest ones.
1. This is literally what the tier system is for.
We sort Pokémon into tiers: Ubers, OU, BL, UU, etc.
And we sort Pokémon as a whole. We don't say Shaymin-S with Air Slash is Uber and without Air Slash is UU. We tier it by its best set, and put it in Ubers.
Banning things in one tier and not another conflicts with this goal. If Politoed is NU because Drizzle is banned in UU, but it's allowed to have Drizzle in OU, then its tier isn't reflective of the Pokémon anymore. For a tier system to make sense, all the formats have to have as similar rules as possible.
On the flip side, If Gothitelle is Uber but UU bans Shadow Tag, it makes zero sense for Gothitelle to be banned in UU. You're not playing under any of the rules that caused Gothitelle to be banned in the first place.
2. Banning Pokémon doesn't complicate the ruleset.
The rules for a tier should be as simple as possible.
If you ban a Pokémon, you don't add any new rules; the existing "no Ubers" rule covers it.
If you ban an ability, that adds a rule. This is sometimes necessary, but it should never be the default.
3. Pokémon bans show up in the teambuilder; other bans don't.
It's just nicer to be able to communicate a ban to a user as directly as possible.
4. Conclusion
I could list a lot more reasons, but I'm not as long-winded as I used to be. I just want to clarify that I'm not against all non-pokemon bans. Some, like Evasion Clause, are necessary. I'm just saying that I'd rather ban two or even three Pokémon than one Ability.
I think it's better to ban Pokémon than to ban anything else.
I have a lot of reasons, so let me go through a few of the biggest ones.
1. This is literally what the tier system is for.
We sort Pokémon into tiers: Ubers, OU, BL, UU, etc.
And we sort Pokémon as a whole. We don't say Shaymin-S with Air Slash is Uber and without Air Slash is UU. We tier it by its best set, and put it in Ubers.
Banning things in one tier and not another conflicts with this goal. If Politoed is NU because Drizzle is banned in UU, but it's allowed to have Drizzle in OU, then its tier isn't reflective of the Pokémon anymore. For a tier system to make sense, all the formats have to have as similar rules as possible.
On the flip side, If Gothitelle is Uber but UU bans Shadow Tag, it makes zero sense for Gothitelle to be banned in UU. You're not playing under any of the rules that caused Gothitelle to be banned in the first place.
2. Banning Pokémon doesn't complicate the ruleset.
The rules for a tier should be as simple as possible.
If you ban a Pokémon, you don't add any new rules; the existing "no Ubers" rule covers it.
If you ban an ability, that adds a rule. This is sometimes necessary, but it should never be the default.
3. Pokémon bans show up in the teambuilder; other bans don't.
It's just nicer to be able to communicate a ban to a user as directly as possible.
4. Conclusion
I could list a lot more reasons, but I'm not as long-winded as I used to be. I just want to clarify that I'm not against all non-pokemon bans. Some, like Evasion Clause, are necessary. I'm just saying that I'd rather ban two or even three Pokémon than one Ability.
Last edited: