Here is where your argument just rolled up into a ball and ceased existing.
Why remove stages before banning a character?
Banning two stages = banning two more diverse options for every single character in the cast (a.k.a., banning stages removes depth)
Banning one character = removing one character from everyones matchups (but since other stages can be kept legal, matchups vary more wildly, a.k.a. more depth)
See the problem with banning stages to keep a character legal?
Smash has these options for this exact same reason, so you can explore how a different character works on a different stage.
By only allowing "neutrals" (mind you, the neutrality of YI and FD can be heavily debated), we are removing a lot of learning and time required to adapt and develop a way to play on different stages.
We just fall back to the "FD, no items, Fox only"
#1. My post wasn't meant to be an argument, it was merely a suggestion, and your input on my suggestion is very appreciated.
#2. This thread, and my post, are to discuss possible ideas for a ruleset that includes Meta-Knight. It's not trying to prove that the game would be better with Meta-Knight, it's trying to create an alternative to Unity for people who still want to play with and against Meta-Knight, but in scenario where playing against Meta-Knight isn't as dominant as he is. The purpose of this is not to create a ruleset where Meta-Knight isn't dominate, it's to create one where he's LESS dominate, to provide an alternative ruleset, whether or not it becomes something that is actually used widespread at tournaments. - I do understand why banning stages to keep a character legal has alot of downsides, but as I said, we're not debating that here.
#3. I see your point in the sense that "our metagame needs more stages so that we can advance and adapt", and maybe I should rephrase what I mean about "neutrals".. but what I meant was, 1: Stages that cannot be abused in ways that only apply to specific characters, and 2: Stages in which no character has a reason to stall, or wait for a stage to transform into something more favorable. I'm not saying all the stages I removed don't fit that description, but the ones I included I believe for the most part do.
#4. Also, maybe this is less important, but the idea of having a small stagelist and stages without transitions was also meant to increase the speed of tournaments. But whether that is really needed is debatable.
Uhhh, no. The most neutral stages in the game are probably PS2/Castle Siege/some other stage with transformations. Here's a quick way to tell if a stage is neutral; would a character be likely to CP it (not a player, a character) or ban it? Would it be a frequent occurrence? Then that stage is NOT neutral. FD is the most obvious example of it not being neutral. Additionally, you're putting arbitrary emphasis on characters that do better on flat/plat stages. Why are those characters more important than G&W, Wario, etc? Answer, they're not. So why do some characters get their best stages and others are forced to have only their worse stages legal? No, it's not because those characters are bad (well, some are, but that's not the point). Being bad on many stages means you're a worse character (falco) and being better on a larger variety of stages means you're not a bad/are a decent character (G&W). Yet, you are arbitrarily deciding that falco/Diddy/IC should gain an inherent benefit from the stage list.
I'm not sure how every character in the game plays on every stage.. but I was looking toward the Japanese stagelist, since as pointed out, they seem to not have an issue with Meta-Knight. I don't know what the stages are that are closest to being relatively even for most characters, stages that could also inhibit Meta-Knight (because that's the point of this ruleset..), but I wasn't attempting to put forth fact about stages, nor was I saying I'm the most experienced person who everyone should trust, or even take my opinion into consideration at all. I was just posting my thoughts about some options that I think are at least worth discussing, if only for people like you to explain to the masses (including myself), why that logic isn't completely sound.
Anyways, like I said to ElDomino, your input on my post is appreciated.