I cannot underline enough the point of X-act's recent posts and have posted it myself several times before—pokemon, like poker, is a game where skill is decided in the long run and not the short run. Doug credited his experience with the Battle Tower with giving him insight about how OHKOs really affect a sound strategy and thus one's winning percentage. When you think about these two phenomena, you should start to think about pokemon the right way, in that there shouldn't be much of any emphasis on winning or losing one or two battles since skill in pokemon is/should be determined by winning percentage, not whenever you were able to string together six or seven battles in a row at the right time (any given tournament).
It was also pointed out that pokemon is inherently a game with a lot of luck no matter how you consider it. Some of that luck matters, some of it doesn't. The fact that that luck mattered almost a decade ago is the reason that "we" banned OHKOs in the first place. It may not matter now, which is why it is being reconsidered along with Evasion. But it wasn't banned because it hinges 100% on luck, or else we'd ban moves like Acupressure and Metronome. OHKOs and Evasion were banned because they promoted "luck that mattered".
If you don't like the notion alone that OHKOs are "100% luck dependent", then maybe you're playing the wrong game, or you at least need to change your mindset about losing one pokemon battle, or at least the notion of that, since as Doug pointed out I am sure many of you don't have much or any experience with OHKOs in any capacity. I don't think I have to remind any of you where I play most of my pokemon, and therefore have probably more experience with OHKOs and evasion than pretty much everyone even including the few people who have played the BT more than I have. This is because I am also basing that on the fact that I never, ever refused a challenge on NetBattle in 2004 where my opponent would break out DT Umbreon or Sheer Cold Lapras, something that was possible since people could sneakily uncheck the Evasion and OHKO clauses though a lot of times these challenges would come from people who just didn't know how to check off the clause boxes and just wanted to play.
chaos can attest to this most since we watched each others battles all the time back then but he won't post in this thread (or forum) so whatever. He and others would tell me "dude just DC", since this was before intentionally disconnecting actually wasn't prevented against on the server side by making it impossible to not rejoin the battle if you signed back on within three minutes. But I never even considered DCing even though the battles were rated because I felt that I would be able to beat my opponent anyway, which is why I accepted "random" rated challenges in the first place. And many, many times, I did—I probably only lost like 6-8% of those battles anyway, which is in line with my actual winning percentage. But that isn't even the point, since I didn't really care that much if I lost a battle to OHKOs or evasion, because not only was it was one battle, but I never lost a battle due entirely to either of those anyway, meaning that sure ok you took out my Blissey and therefore, 30 turns later, won the battle, but seriously, whatever.
Now if I didn't have any actual competitive experience in Platinum then my claims that OHKOs are probably not as powerful or hard to beat could be regarded as ignorant, but I do. I don't know how many of you were even playing pokemon back in 2004, let alone willing to accept battles from people who didn't adhere to Evasion or OHKOs clause, or play them out when the offending moves were used against you. I am aware that many of those challenging me intending to (ab)use OHKOs and/or evasion to beat me were largely not top-tier battlers, but I am as aware of this likelihood as I am of the one that OHKOs are a lot harder to (ab)use than they could have been in Advance or GSC. The only thing that matters is whether OHKOs (and Evasion though that's technically outside the scope of this thread), in Platinum, are luck that matters.
As an aside, I'm also kind of amused at those of you who are so remarkably quick to condemn OHKOs in Platinum as a powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use, but then would counterargue my suspicion that Stealth Rock is by that definition the exactly same thing by stating "the game isn't broken with Stealth Rock". Newsflash—we don't know whether the game is broken with OHKOs either. This isn't GSC anymore, where FishTauros would murder entire teams with "252 EVs in every stat". Those of you who argue OHKOs would definitely break the game but who also think Stealth Rock isn't breaking the game are therefore being kind of hypocritical. We don't know anything worthwhile about OHKOs in Platinum until we test them in Platinum.
The reason people think SR is "broken" in Platinum is because, after almost two years of having the move at our disposal, there is now and/or still suspicion that it may be a "powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use". At the very least they are basing this claim on actual experience with the move, whereas many of you, as stated above and before, have hardly if ever experienced OHKOs and are therefore unfairly condemning them. So either admit that SR is comparable to OHKOs in the "powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use" regard (since I've shown that OHKOs aren't banned because they are luck but because they are "luck that matters"), or admit that OHKOs may not be as bad as you think because you are lacking the necessary information to be able to say that about them in Platinum.