Conclusions/Personal Thoughts
Ultimately, all of the above seems to point toward acting on PT, but doesn't necessarily point on a clear direction. Most voters seem to at least support a Wrap ban, with 8/12 supporting some level of banning PT moves, but we also have potential upcoming drops affecting the tier heavily, so I think it'd be best to get some thoughts on whether people think it'd be best to:
1. move forward with a suspect right now
2. wait for potential tiering changes, test those with PT, evaluate potentially banning PT
3. do something else like unbanning UUBLs immediately or during the yearly ladder rotation
Out of these three options I think the second is probably the option I'd go for.
As Amaranth and others have said, the main issue with the tier is the lack of defensive presences in the builder, with the likely dropping of Slowbro and potentially re-introducing Articuno, Lapras, and Hypno (despite my concerns about Lapras and Hypno) then we will get a lot more answers to the extremely overbearing offensive threats that are currently running rampant in the tier — and we also might get another extremely strong Pokemon above the 100 base speed threshold in Jolteon, which (while likely overbearing) would also help against Tentacruel.
There is also very little (if any) downside to this since there aren't any big tournaments between now and when OU does it's VR again. If there was a lot of big tournaments between now and then maybe I'd be less in favour of this option, but that isn't the case which makes this point moot.
Normally I'd be against tiering based on a future metagame, but when (potentially) massive tiering changes are very likely to happen soon which would massively help us deal with the litany of offensive threats in the tier (which is the main problem people have with UU currently), with barely anything happening in the meantime while we wait for OU, then I don't see the downside in this option.
4. Whether we consider PT as uncompetitive or specific things like Wrap Tent as "broken" heavily influences what action should look like anyway, and some people flat out do not believe it's uncompetitive, use other definitions that don't align with the Smogon definition, simply do not care about uncompetitiveness as a concept, or conflate action vs broken elements with action against uncompetitive elements even though they look different.
I think this a very important point that we need to consider when discussing whether something is uncompetitive or not. In general, while we agree on a generally rough idea of what an uncompetitive element in the tier is, when it comes to the specifics then there is a lot of disagreement about it. For me personally, I stick pretty closely to the
tiering policy document's guidelines around how skill is defined (which includes prediction), and therefore I don't see Wrap making the game very prediction-centric to be something uncompetitive — however
other players argue that the very prediction-centric nature of Wrap is uncompetitive — on the grounds that players can't predict switches very consistently and that either side could just use a random number generator to choose their move, making the outcome completely random. This fundamental disconnect is I think a large part of why both sides can't agree on whether they think Wrap counts as uncompetitive or not — we're operating under different definitions of what uncompetitive means, which makes either side's position on the issue completely unintelligible to the other, making it hard for us to have productive discussion.
(Note: The bolded text wasn't intended for me to throw shade at anyone, I'm just trying to make it easier for people to see the hyperlink)
I think waiting for the OU VR results makes some sense, but a supermajority also favors banning Wrap for being uncompetitive, which I'm not convinced somehow changes by dropping in a bunch of slow near-mandatory mons to the tier, potentially (Jolteon is a different story, maybe, but like... we have faster mons than Tent that have Twave already and how's that going?). I think regardless, PT creates some degree of bullshit in teambuilding and play where you have to live in this constant state of fear of one paraslam or crit on your fast frail mon enabling Tentacruel to just take over the entire game, even if Wrap-less UU right now still involves lots of fast mons hitting each other and crits being big swings. The disagreement between me and anti-ban people mostly seems to be if the degree of bullshit it imposes is "too much," which is subjective, but my personal read of it is that it's too big of an influence, especially when playing C+ and finding it infinitely better.
At the same time however, you could argue that dropping some slower but very bulky mons to the tier, could allow teams to reduce the risk that their fast-frail Pokemon has to risk getting crit or eat a paraslam — the main reason people have to take those risks currently is because of how few bulky Pokemon there are in UU currently which would change with the potential additions of Slowbro (and potentially Hypno/Lapras). That would in itself greatly help with the problems that people have with Wrap.
I do find the idea that there was a vocal minority to ban PT a bit funny when the opposite is borne out in the survey - the loud minority of people are the ones coming out in opposition to a ban in this thread, and I'm glad they spoke up even if I don't agree with the points. I did consider a lot of them and I think Amaranth has the most convincing arguments by far, though I do have to say, I don't find the "crits are more variance than PT" argument particularly convincing because we don't have the power to ban a mechanic from the game, but Wrap is firmly in our control and I don't believe that just because there's big sources of uncontrollable variance that we should ignore smaller ones that also induce big builder and play restrictions and flat-out remove most of a player's options per turn, reducing the game to "stay/switch" until you win the mindgame (or win it enough random number of times in a row, in the case of just going to something faster and waiting + having to not get owned by them switching to something that beats you).
I don't think we have to assume that some forms of variance aren't able to be dealt with from tiering action. A lot of the Pokemon that are seen as extremely volatile (Dugtrio, Kangaskhan, Dodrio) are some of the most volatile Pokemon in the tier by far with their stupid high crit-rates ontop of their very strong STAB-moves (which in the case of Body Slam, also has a 30% chance to paralyze it's target). We could absolutely remove some of these Pokemon to try and reduce the amount of variance in the tier (incase nothing happens with the OU VR) which could also help greatly with improving the viability of the bulkier Pokemon we do currently have — which mainly are good at taking Special attacks and don't take Physical attacks very well.
Also, it might just be me personally, but I don't think the builder or in-game restrictions that Wrap imposes are that important, as others have already mentioned, you'd be running the Pokemon that answer Tentacruel regardless of it has Wrap or not and you'd want to avoid taking paralysis on those Pokemon in either case, those Pokemon are just really good — but even if we ignore that — I just don't think that it being centralizing matters that much as long as both players still have strategic agency both in the builder and in-game; even if it takes a bunch of turns or the options both players have are limited, they outcome of that interaction is still primarily dependent on the decisions made by both players, which is the main thing I care about.
