Seeing that baton pass has quite an unique effect, probably an example of any other move that could be "stripped down to the bare minimum" without any cartridge mod could be nice to make your argument more clear regarding possible mouth-foam slipper slopes. Seriously, calling the banlist complex, extreme, or arbitrary is ignoring exactly what the purpose of this thread is.
Even looking at the extremely small number of moves that have been banned in past gen ous, there's a very similar example and a somewhat similar example. Assist is banned in gen 5 because it works with prankster to get priority on very specific moves that become broken when used with priority. it would be very easy to ban only the combination of assist and those moves, far, far easier than it would be with baton pass, but the move as a whole is banned instead. why? because assist is an otherwise never used gimmick move in gen 5. the only reason baton pass would be any different is because it does have a marginal use outside of passing stat boosts, so what you're really arguing here is that there should be a completely arbitrary, imagined level of viability a small non broken use case of a broken move that would justify picking it apart into tiny pieces to allow it in some cases with a complex ban. this adds another massive element of subjectivity into an already very subjective and messy task of deciding which edge cases should be allowed with drypass and which shouldn't.
the other example is gen 6 swagger, it was not banned because it was broken on some normal set of some random ou pokemon, it was banned specifically because of its use with abilities and moves like thunder wave, prankster, foul play, substitute, etc. you could absolutely do the same thing as a proposed drypass clause with swagger by, say, allowing swagger foul play but not with prankster or thunder wave, allowing certain numbers of certain combinations, etc, and some of them might even end up being viable but not broken. why not do this, then? because it's a pointless waste of time that needlessly complicates a ban list all because a broken move is only broken in some cases, and it's exactly the same with drypass. maybe i could see why an exception would make sense for drypass it were suspect tested and found to be some massive, game changing savior that fixes a specific metagame, but no one in this thread has even tried to argue of a case where it would have a substantial positive impact, let alone why that makes it a good idea to implement such a clause in all tiers bp is currently banned in.
"No stat boosting elements" seems pretty simple to follow. It there are +60 elements that do it, does their relevance/usage really matters? It's not a massive complex ban at all, and has a lot of precedents across multiple formats. This effort to make it a blanket clause is actually attempting to reduce the complexity of the bans in general. At most the discussion can derail to one or two niche elements on it, like the mentioned Psych Up. But overall I cannot do more than echo the community's need to settle on a simple solution to the bimonthly BP threads and this seems to be it.
not exactly sure what the precedent you're talking about it, but i'm assuming it's this:
which honestly i think kind of proves my point? listing the exact combinations of moves that aren't allowed is clearly the correct choice over only listing the vague (yet much, much less vague than "any move or ability that can raise the user's stats in any circumstances") "baton pass + partial trapping moves", but such an itemized list for all of the very large number of stat boosting mechanics would frankly look ridiculous and completely dominate the page with a bunch of nonsense that would never matter in any circumstance like "baton pass + anger point". i'm really not sure how a list with like 50+ combinations on it isn't "massive", and not listing them would mean that the list of rules for the tier doesn't actually list exactly what isn't allowed in the tier, which seems more than a little backwards to me. are people supposed to go look directly through ps's code to find out if baton pass + heart swap is legal?
you mentioned psych up, but that's far from the only edge case. there's also heart swap and spectral thief, which were mentioned earlier in the thread, and what about stuff like z moves? should the already gigantic list include stuff like "baton pass + normalium z + whirlwind" because you can use that on an otherwise normal set to pass +1 special defense boosts? but if you think that's too minor to need to be banned, then how do you ban that but not that obviously broken "baton pass + normalium z + celebrate"? there's no reason to think there won't be more new cases like this in future gens that would also be automatically put under the effect of a blanket baton pass clause.
this is what i mean when i say this isn't worth the headache. this would be a blanket ban across several generations that would have unique nuances and edge cases in each generation all for a move that would likely have very little impact, let alone positive impact, in any of them. maybe if you love endlessly arguing about stuff that doesn't matter this is a good thing, but of all things to do this for, why have it be to allow a mangled, crippled form stripped of the entire point of the move of one of the most broken moves that has ever been in pokemon? if you want to remove needless complexity, then ban the move that's broken in 99% of use cases instead of jumping through hoops to allow the 1% where it isn't.
Is passing Defiant boosts or Aqua Ring broken? Probably not. Are they worth preserving? Absolutely not. You eliminate all these discussions of Snowball, Well-Baked Body, Ingrain, Psych Up, etc. by simply banning the combination of stat raising or positive status conditions with Baton Pass. I believe this makes more sense not only from a policy perspective but a logistical perspective to make the drypass ban easier to implement in future tiers.
I am very confused as to what you mean here. How exactly do you "ban the combination of stat raising or positive status conditions with baton pass" without either making a list of moves / items / abilities it applies to or completely changing cartridge mechanics? you can't ban an abstract concept; there's no way to actually enforce that. there has to be an actual list somewhere, whether it's shown on the page describing the clause or not. As long as said list exists, there will have to be some ambiguity as to what should go on it, as i explained in my previous paragraph.
overall, this is just a solution looking for a problem. what exactly is wrong with having a move that is absurdly broken in its intended use case just... being banned? the problem is not that adding complexity to banlists is always a bad thing that should never be done, the problem is that this specific case is a combination of absurd and unnecessary that really doesn't have any benefit and is just change for the sake of change.
