This is the best explination I've heard yet and basically clears alot of stuff up. I agree 100%I think a character should only be banned if the character is game breaking. If the character being banned leads to much more match diversity and a much more interesting metagame, in other words, a much better game, than I think it can be justified.
Akuma in ST is a good example. With him not banned/soft banned, the metagame of ST consists of 'air fireball' (exaggerating of course, but y'know...). The game is, according to the 10+ years of ST play, better without him.
A lot of the times I've heard people say "Well, if we ban the top character, then the second best is now the new best; banning the top doesn't fix anything." This is not even close to logical.
Perhaps a very simple example will show my point. A game of 5 characters, A-E, exists. A is the best, and the rankings go alphabetically to E, the worst. Now, A is 10 times better than E. B, the second best, is only twice as good as E. Because A is so dominating, he is the only character that has a hope of placing well in any tournament that matters. The game, which had a cast of five, now consists of just A. The metagame is just A. All the strategies are just A.
If we ban A, the balance of the game suddenly becomes leagues better. It becomes feasible to see any of the remaining four characters in a tournament match, as the gap between best and worst has become significantly reduced. The metagame is more in-depth, as the number of match ups and strategies to now gets a significant boost. While there's still a best character, good ol' B, he's nothing like nasty A.
I think bans are only justifiable when we reach this kind of situation, where having a character unbanned only detracts from the game. And I don't think that sort of situation has any real possibility of showing up in Brawl.
Very well said.