???
in what universe is it not consistent. KR is banned for being a purely uncompetitive item.
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree.
Imo banning King’s Rock instead of Cloyster is like banning Air Slash instead of Shaymin Sky.
King’s Rock can be held by essentially anything, while Air Slash also has a wide distribution.
King’s Rock has a 10% flinch chance, while Air Slash has a 28.5% (accuracy adjusted) chance.
Furthermore, King’s Rock and Air Slash see no competitive use outside of their sole abusers (thus banning Air Slash could also be argued to have no collateral damage).
The bottom line is only Shaymin S was broken with Air Slash while only Cloyster was broken with King’s Rock, so until another abuser pops up it makes more sense to ban Shaymin S and Cloyster.
For example, if Zapdos was oppressing the metagame with Static or Kyurem was BSing past its checks with freeze, we’d ban Zapdos and Kyurem opposed to Static and Ice Beam/Freeze Dry.
In all of these cases, you could argue like you did and say “ X item/move was banned for it’s Y RNG% thus making it uncompetitive”, but in reality it’s more nuanced than that.
If you don’t think this is how the tiering policy works, read the councils’ posts on sleep and Darkrai carefully. They clearly make a point to mention that sleep was broken on more than just Darkrai (also valiant and lilligant).
Because if sleep was only broken on Darkrai, we’d ban Darkrai and not sleep. Wouldn’t matter that sleep was RNG based/uncompetitive; Darkrai would be banned. But because there are multiple abusers, we ban sleep. My point is I don’t get why this logic doesn’t apply to King’s Rock/Cloyster.