I haven't played on the ou ladder in a while so I haven't really faced or used bp. I can definitely understand that its difficult for current teams to prepare for all of the relevant metagame threats if bp is also included in the list, but I also sorta don't buy the argument that speed-pass is entirely mu based or that its a completely broken and shitty strategy that requires 0 skill to play with, and is impossible to win against for most teams. It sure seems that way if something gets a speed pass and then sweeps your entire team, but I think a lot of people don't realize that just having experience playing against scolipass (since it has previously been a very unusual style) can make it a lot easier to deal with. For example, I recently watched an ou live by
aim where he got swept the first time because he played in a way that allowed the opponent to pass a boost and then set-up further to sweep easily, whereas the next time around he played much smarter and more carefully, allowing him to defeat the strategy and disallowing the opponent to play in a way that would outright sweep him. That being said bp definitely has the potential to turn a lot more games into a one-sided struggle than any other playstyle and in general its frustrating to lose in the way bp often defeats you, so I can understand where people are coming from and I wouldn't be heartbroken if speedpass was banned (although I did have fun carefully crafting and playing strategies like curse pass in ru (or even chicken pass) to a level of decently high consistency, especially for the cursepass... ;_;).
One thing that I don't support however is the complete ban of baton pass. I just heavily dislike the idea that so many uses of baton pass that aren't broken in any way are eliminated from the game (for example, specs sylveon in uu, or a psychic type like celebi avoiding pursuit) as a backlash to the attempt to remove something else that people view as a problem. I realize other people don't feel the same way or don't feel its worthwhile, and while I'd like to convince others otherwise, I definitely can respect other people's opinion on it and I get where they are coming from. Regardless, i'd like to attempt to explain why I don't like the idea of banning a move that has benign uses, even though my argument certainly has solid counterarguments.
Firstly, Comparing this to banning protean from greninja is silly because greninja is a pokemon that was simply deemed broken, and thus the mon was banned regardless of why or what qualities made it broken. Greninja was just
designed in a way that it had innate qualities that made it broken, and so it doesn't make any sense to put restrictions on it (imagine a clause that limited the number of evs you could put in certain stats on greninja) just to try to "balance" the pokemon.
Baton Pass is a move on the other hand, and the effectiveness of a move has a lot to do with how its
used, not solely how its designed (that obviously plays a role in it). When baton pass is interacting with abilities or other attacks on certain pokemon in order to do a certain thing that is deemed broken/uncomptetitive/unhealthy/whatever for the metagame, it means a certain strategy has been developed that simply utilizes that move. Someone brought up some gsc ban about mean look + other moves and I think this is a good example where the strategy was banned, not the move(s). Basically, if the same move has other benign uses, it makes sense to me that smogon should try to preserve that element of the game as much as possible, and just remove the broken element of it. An example of this is the endless battle clause, where we didn't ban a move like recycle or heal pulse, and instead banned the combination of items/moves that would allow for an endless battle, which we didn't want. While i'm sure most people would have no qualms if leppa berry was banned (I certainly don't), it still shows how smogon would choose to ban that over any other element of endless battle because there are practically 0 side effects to doing so. While I understand that its simpler to just completely remove it and not deal with it anymore, I disagree of the prospect of having reduced flexibility at the teambuilding stage compared to the cartridge game just because we didn't care enough to be thorough and specific with what we banned. Regarding the argument about how we thought banning full bp chains would be enough, leading to new strategies being discovered and banned, I think bp is an extreme example and it shouldn't be the reason we ditch whatever we have been doing. I can easily make the argument that bp isn't going to get broken with sub passing or dry passing, and while I think everyone would agree, I feel it is useless to say so since its simply going down the same slippery slope people are wanting to avoid (who knows, maybe in the next generation certain combinations of mons/abilities/moves will be able to utilize sub passing in a broken manner). Instead i'd like to argue that there is a reason why we have been making complex bp bans, and I think we should stick to doing so even though bp is an unusual case regarding recurring complex bans, because the reason for maintaining some use of bp is still valid. Heck, it might have just been a mistake to not go straight to an "only dry passing" clause from full bp chains by assuming it wouldn't be broken beneath that and that there would be value in retaining whatever level of baton pass we have allowed in the past (this is different from dry passing since there is obvious, direct value to it, regardless of how metagame changing it may be).
I'm sure no one feels drypassing (most notably with shedinja obviously) is broken or unhealthy, and I feel pretty confident no one feels froslass was broken in dpp. If my assumption is true, what is the reason for willingly adding new restrictive clauses to the game that prevent more than just the strategy that is being targeted? I can understand wanting to make it easier for newer players to understand the clauses, but beyond that it just seems like laziness or this mentality that complex bans are the bane of smogon's existence. For the record, I don't consider blaziken + speed boost to be a "complex ban", I consider it a silly one that is attempting to change the actual game mechanics, not the way they can be used (like changing all of arceus's base stats to 100 across the board or something to allow it in ou). Perhaps other people feel differently but I think its comparing apples and oranges if you are comparing that to a complex ban that prevents certain strategies around baton pass, but not the move itself. (Following the same logic, banning gliscor + sand veil would seem a little silly in dpp, so I can get behind banning evasion abilities itself, but then also adding something that allows mons that have no other choice (like froslass), since the original clause is indirectly banning a mon for no reason even though it isn't explicitly stated).
As a side note, to whoever mentioned shed stall in this is being incredibly narrow-minded by claiming that stall that utilizes a certain pokemon requires significantly less skill and more importantly a "better mu" to win, compared to other stall teams. Furthermore, its simply stating "I don't like playing against this so lets get rid of it!" which is a mentality that simply does not justify any ban.
This is probably riddled with grammar and logic errors so apologies for that. I just didn't want to stay silent when I felt I had something to contribute.
e: proposed clause (and slight fixes)
Baton Pass Clause:
i) A Pokemon cannot use the move "Baton Pass" if they have a positive stat boost in any stat.
ii) A Pokemon cannot use the move "Baton Pass" if the pokemon using the move is behind a substitute
e2: goddam this is a massive post, so..
tldr: If bp is to be banned, all non-broken elements of bp should be preserved as there is no strong reason to ban them alongside what is being considered broken. Restricting the strategies that can be used with moves is different from restricting the innate qualities of a pokemon (such as greninja + protean or blaziken + speed boost), so the two shouldn't be compared.