Question 1: Should we have any sort of standard (could leave a little or a lot to interpretation) for what makes something broken / banworthy?
Question 2: When doing retiering from the top, starting at what's effectively a generation's ubers tier and then banning from there, we generally have 2 different sorts of players, who tend to have fairly homogeneous perspectives. The players with experience playing the ubers metagame before often want to make the ubers metagame the 1U metagame, believing that nothing is broken. The players without experience playing the ubers metagame often play a little and then believe that some Pokemon are broken. How do we reconcile this, without banning things unnecessarily (because a Pokemon is not actually broken, it just takes some time to learn how to handle it, but once you've learnt it, it's fairly manageable) or keeping broken Pokemon in the tier (because the Ubers players for various reasons think that the Pokemon in question isn't broken)?
Question 2: When doing retiering from the top, starting at what's effectively a generation's ubers tier and then banning from there, we generally have 2 different sorts of players, who tend to have fairly homogeneous perspectives. The players with experience playing the ubers metagame before often want to make the ubers metagame the 1U metagame, believing that nothing is broken. The players without experience playing the ubers metagame often play a little and then believe that some Pokemon are broken. How do we reconcile this, without banning things unnecessarily (because a Pokemon is not actually broken, it just takes some time to learn how to handle it, but once you've learnt it, it's fairly manageable) or keeping broken Pokemon in the tier (because the Ubers players for various reasons think that the Pokemon in question isn't broken)?