Yum, this is quite a controversial topic. Thank you
Just as morality and personal views influence our everyday decisions, I respect that they do the same to our views in Pokémon. While not every view is considered viable or optimal by the majority, they ought to be accepted, as close-mindedness is an unhealthy factor in the development of the metagame.
The game should be left unchanged and kept to its core, free of bans and other regulations in an attempt to make the game "fairer".
This imo can lead to untame and unruly metagames. The philosophy of power creeps are what I believe to be the epitome of this argument: "Even if Pokémon become more broken, the only difference from one generation to the next is the amount of power." I consider a ban-free metagame to be a giant dent in the fairness of anything - ban lists exist for a reason. A level playing field is not a completely new one with an insane power difference from the previous one but instead one that stays consistent and adapts to the introduction of new threats.
Strategies that revolve around gimmicks are discouraged by the way the metagame and others' views on them are set up.
This is a very true and prevalent philosophy, though I like others hate to agree with it. The concept of "netdecking" RMTs is a spawn of this because whatever is conventional and is having success is the "right way to go". This mentality discourages a lot of possible innovation, and while it is true that the majority of gimmicks are nothing more than what the term connotatively suggests, it deprives us of some of the intellectual challenges and overall fun, playing against carbon-copy after carbon-copy team on the ladder.
The game should be regulated to the point where competitiveness and skill are more encouraged even if it makes the game more difficult for "worse" players.
This one is the dividing line between overzealous competition and casual play. As one of those on the left side of this line, I do appreciate the regulation, as it ensures that there isn't an overwhelming incompetence amongst the people I play against. On the other hand, the line of separation is very detracting from the development of newer or less serious battlers. A clear example of this to me is the division in my track team among those who make it to meets and those who don't. It's the embodiment of "the good get better and the bad get worse," to put it in simple terms. I feel like that works the same in this philosophy's relation to Pokémon. It's definitely a controversial thing that has its pros and cons.
"I believe in not using legendaries and/or any event exclusives."
- Similar thinking, "I only use teams composed of my favorites no matter how bad they are."
I'm not an advocate of this mentality, though I'm all but forced to respect it sometimes. I'm extremely competitive with many things that I do (well), and the limits that are self-imposed by these thoughts I can't begin to imagine placing on myself. I feel as if it's an unnecessary weight on your success, but again, the dividing line between competitiveness and fun sets this mentality in its own little pocket of validity. I know we're likely not to find a balance between these two mentalities.
The game should be regulated so that everything is put on an even scale. For example, Stealth Rock in previous generations was viewed by some as a factor that caused the wrong type of centralization by making Pokemon weak to it unusable.
This is the balanced metagame I was trying to elaborate on earlier. We ought to keep things on a level field rather than just raise standards to accommodate for the most broken new inductees. As I've said, "power creep" is not something I'm a fan of.
The game itself is ruined by players who take an elitist, overly-competitive approach to things. These type of players are viewed as party poopers who suck the fun out of things.
There's a fine difference between doing well and doing whatever you want. I believe in doing well; I possess a distinct success mentality with many things, and it's hard for me to take some things lightly given my competitive nature. On the other side, there is a certain degree of fun to be had by both mentalities - you can have fun succeeding in your goals, or you can have fun by virtue of free will and happy-go-lucky abandon. I respect that both of these clash, but being of the former thought process, I greatly enjoy the thrill of success and setting new records for myself (I have this mentality in running, card games, video games, etc.). I feel like this is a preferential choice, and it depends on your personality and in what you take the most pride in.
The metagame has slowly digressed by Game Freak's own design to the point where it's unfixable (see: gen 5).
Although we try to fight it, "power creeping" is just something we can't hold back. The game slowly rises in standards without us really analyzing it to figure out the correct limitations to put in place - thus, the #banallthings campaigns are regularly complained about by the laddering community. This is to me a very real truth; it's just that we haven't figured out how to properly contain the power creep. Admittedly this is a relatively stable relapse from the chaos of the fifth generation, but there is always room for improvement. Nothing is perfect
tl;dr I'm competitive, and I take great pride in success and achieving new accomplishments, but I feel it vital to understand and respect the various theories of how to play and maintain this game. An open-minded metagame is a healthy one, open to all possible solutions and working to establish a relative calm.
