Order of Operations

[Aldaron]

OK well I am going to go ahead and declare that the check stuff is completely irrelevant. We have established that there are questionable ubers. We have established we are going to do something about them.

I don't see the point in continuing to elaborate on this check stuff when a simple scenario has presented itself in front of us:

either we test one at a time, or we test altogether.

No unnecessary cluttering with checks, counters, or whatever. Just two options (really only one scientifically sound one).

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

I don't even think you understand what we mean when we're talking about checks. People have stated that we should test the subjects before banning Garchomp simply because Lati@s provides a check against it. Me and jrrrrr said that this notion is ridiculous.

And bullshit yours is "scientifically sound." What kind of science are we using in Pokemon? There's only one option that won't result in a ridiculous mess that quite frankly I guarantee no one would want to clean.

My proposal tests each Pokemon individually for brokenness and then tests all the nonbroken Pokemon at once. If we unban all 5 at once we're going to be ass over ankles trying to locate where the problems lie.

 

[Aldaron]

OK.

We unban all the questionable ubers. We let that metagame stabilize.

We then use our best judgment to see if there are issues, and then we fix those issues.

Why go the more complicated route when you can easily go the simple route. Instead of having a combinatorial explosion of metagames, since we would have to test Garchomp with Deoxys-S, Garchomp without Deoxys-S, Garchomp with Deoxys-S and Manaphy, Garchomp with Deoxys-S no Manaphy and Deoxys-D etc.etc.

Don't say you can test for brokeness in the metagame with all current OU Pokemon without Garchomp. That is pure foolishness. If you are going to determine brokeness you can only determine it for that metagame, not for others.

I like simplicity.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Except I've stated about 20 times that I don't think that metagame would "stabilize" (depending on your definition of stability). Also you're definitely misreading my proposal, but whatever.

I like simplicity.

Right because nothing's more simple than having a giant fuck of a mess and having no clue what to base decisions on because everything is completely out of order.

 

[obi]

How are you defining "stabilize", then?

 

[Jumpman16]

Why go the more complicated route when you can easily go the simple route. Instead of having a combinatorial explosion of metagames, since we would have to test Garchomp with Deoxys-S, Garchomp without Deoxys-S, Garchomp with Deoxys-S and Manaphy, Garchomp with Deoxys-S no Manaphy and Deoxys-D etc.etc.

If I understand Jabba's proposal correctly, we won't have to do this if we can somehow determine that Garchomp is indeed too broken for standard right now. We can "pretend" that Garchomp's trial is right now, and whatever we decide for its Stage 1 (uber or ou, and I'm not pretending that isn't the hard part), we will have acted on it. Then we can take Garchomp off of the "Suspect Test" ladder and test Latias or Latios or both (I also won't pretend that allowing both of these at the same time is a good idea), then decide accordingly, then rinse and repeat.

If I understand Jabba's proposal correctly, I agree with it 100% and would like to get started on it asap.

 

[Aldaron]

So essentially we are saying the the current OU metagame without Garchomp (and I assume without Deoxys-S) is the standard "guinea pig" metagame?

So we test Garchomp, determine whatever for it.

Then we test let's say Lati@s, determine whatever for it. Since we have defined the previous set of Pokemon's metagame as the standard, we do not need Garchomp in this test. We are testing each variable separately.

Once we determine after all these time consuming tests what is or is not broken in this arbitrarily defined guinea pig metagame, we will then test all those that are not broken ONLY IN THAT ARBITRARILY DEFINED GUINEA PIG METAGAME in a metagame with each other.

Is that what this proposal is?

Because if it is, I find that to be absolutely ridiculous. First of all, what is the reasoning behind making the Garchomp-less metagame the standard "guinea pig"

Second, since Jabba is claiming his proposal tests for the "broken" factor of these Pokemon in that metagame, how can we determine they will remain broken or not with the inclusion of the others?

Jabba says that after these individual tests we will unban all the ones we determine to be not broken. OK...great...So essentially...we are declaring a guinea pig metagame, and then ignoring it anyway because we are going to test all the Pokemon we don't determine to be broken together anyway.

Since when, btw, has a guinea pig metagame ever been the determining factor for how broken something may or may not be?

That's my huge issue with this whole proposal. You guys are saying OU with out Garchomp will be the testing grounds for all these individually, but how is that metagame a relevant metagame for all of them together?

I'll answer that...it isn't.

EDIT: I also find it slightly weird that the only counter argument to unbanning them all at once to test them in a metagame relevant to each other is this: "Right because nothing's more simple than having a giant fuck of a mess and having no clue what to base decisions on because everything is completely out of order."

"Right" I am shocked Jabba believes his proposal will go any smoother. Also, how can you assume everything will be a mess and everything will be out of order? I 100% guarantee to you we can figure out issues in the metagame with all of them unbanned, and we can even pinpoint where the issue is. That statement really makes no sense to me. It is so unbelievably arbitrary...seriously how do you assume that we will have a "giant fuck of a mess."

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

You obviously don't understand one of my biggest points. This is only possible because none of the Pokemon are counters to one another. Testing them individually or in a group will produce no difference in how that Pokemon performs. If Darkrai destroys the metagame it would do so because it's broken. It would also do so if Manaphy was present or not. The upside to my proposal is that if the metagame is destroyed we know who the culprit is. If you test Latias, Latios, Darkrai, Manaphy and Mew at the same time and the metagame breaks, there's no telling which Pokemon is to blame. Also in that situation we're testing in a nonexistent metagame. Under my proposal we're testing each suspect in the current metagame. How are we supposed to judge each Pokemon's effect on the metagame when we're testing it in an environment that doesn't currently exist?

EDIT: Oh and I should really clarify upon Stage 2. I thought about it a bit and I don't really think it would be a test per say, but rather just a precautionary measure. If 2 Pokemon are individually not broken, chances are they're not broken when put together. However it's really better to be safe than sorry. So Stage 2 would only be a short couple weeks or so just making sure that everything worked out alright. It wouldn't require a vote, but rather just a short discussion. You can't do anything to the metagame with at least trying it first and that's really all Stage 2 is.

 

[obi]

I really disagree with this method of tallying. My votes were specifically "test these together", not "invent an order for me I don't care".

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

I didn't create an order for people who said to test shit at the same time. That'd be kinda dumb wouldn't it?

EDIT: You're probably referring to this

i had to make some judgement calls on how to count some votes (listing issues under the same number and whatnot)

That was misstated. I meant that more towards people who listed issues under a set of numbers. Like "7-10: Manaphy, Lati@s, Darkrai, Mew." I had to make the call about whether they wanted them counted in that order, or if they wanted them counted the same. Like for instance Bologo clearly makes note that his are in order. I didn't mean it to come across the way it did. Sorry about that.

 

[Aldaron]

You obviously don't understand one of my biggest points. This is only possible because none of the Pokemon are counters to one another.

I understand your point. I am saying it is assuming too much. First, you assume that a Pokemon has to be a counter to have an effect on the other Pokemon. That assumption is severely flawed. Second, you are implying that none of the Pokemon might increase the usage of other Pokemon that might be counters to said Pokemon. You do realize that second degree influences are influences nonetheless, right?

Testing them individually or in a group will produce no difference in how that Pokemon performs. If Darkrai destroys the metagame it would do so because it's broken.

Wrong. How can you assume that testing them individually will have the same result as testing them at the same time? And if Darkrai destroys the metagame with only it allowed, then all we can state is that it destroyed THAT metagame, not the metagame with all of them present.

It would also do so if Manaphy was present or not.

You do not know know this. Just because Manaphy might not directly counter Darkrai does not mean it would not effect Darkrai's place in that metagame. Please do not state something that is merely an assumption as a perceived fact.

The upside to my proposal is that if the metagame is destroyed we know who the culprit is. If you test Latias, Latios, Darkrai, Manaphy and Mew at the same time and the metagame breaks, there's no telling which Pokemon is to blame.

Please define "and the metagame breaks." I have no idea what you are referring to when you say this. Please do not say "having a giant fuck of a mess and having no clue what to base decisions on because everything is completely out of order." That tells me nothing.

Also in that situation we're testing in a nonexistent metagame. Under my proposal we're testing each suspect in the current metagame. How are we supposed to judge each Pokemon's effect on the metagame when we're testing it in an environment that doesn't currently exist?

What exactly do you mean mean here? Once we unban all the questionable ubers, we aren't going to judge them right away. I clearly stated once the metagame has settled down...meaning we make judgments regarding the Pokemon after a set period of time. Are you actually trying to say that we cannot make judgments on Pokemon in a metagame after a set period of time? What exactly are we doing with Garchomp then? Are we not...making a judgment on the metagame after some time, lol?

EDIT: Oh and I should really clarify upon Stage 2. I thought about it a bit and I don't really think it would be a test per say, but rather just a precautionary measure. If 2 Pokemon are individually not broken, chances are they're not broken when put together. However it's really better to be safe than sorry. So Stage 2 would only be a short couple weeks or so just making sure that everything worked out alright. It wouldn't require a vote, but rather just a short discussion. You can't do anything to the metagame with at least trying it first and that's really all Stage 2 is.

I'll get to this after you clarify exactly why you believe the Pokemon not countering each other won't still have an effect on other Pokemon. I hate to use examples as support, but would you actually claim that Garchomp, who certainly does not counter Lucario, does not nevertheless beat Lucario one on one nearly everytime and therefore help keep the Swords Dance version from running amok in this metagame?

Let's not forget the most basic practical problem with your proposal, however. You have said we are first going to test Garchomp. Well that means that the "guinea pig" metagame is clearly the current metagame without Garchomp. However, let us assume that Garchomp is not banned. Does this mean that the test for the next one, let's say Latios, will be with or without Garchomp? If it is without, then we do not know its actual effect on the metagame. If it is with, then we are saying we are going to "Add on" to our guinea pig metagame. This however is an issue with the next Pokemon, let's say Manaphy.

Do we now ban Latios and Garchomp in the test for Manaphy? Note you cannot ban Latios and not Garchomp, as that would be severely inconsistent. Now if you decide to remain consistent and ban both from the test with Manaphy...well then my original question comes out.

Why has the metagame without Garchomp been chosen to be the metagame of choice? You supposedly have some fear of judging stuff in metagames that we do not know anything about, but tell me Jabba, do we know anything definitive about the metagame without Garchomp?

No, we do not.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

I'm not going to address most of your post. You clearly don't understand the point of my test and it's becoming quite frustrating trying to explain it to you.

However I will address some words you put into my mouth.

None of the "suspects" directly counter Garchomp and since it really is the pressing issue in the metagame I truly feel we should get it out of the way first, by itself.

"by itself" is the key phrase in that sentence. When I said that Garchomp would be done by itself I meant that a decision would be made on Garchomp prior to all suspect testing. So when we test the suspects it could be in a metagame with Garchomp OU, or it could be one with Garchomp Uber, that's for the people to eventually decide. I don't get where you grabbed the idea that I wanted to create some "guinea pig" metagame.

 

[obi]

I disagree with your assessment that the Pokemon would not help counter each other.

Darkrai is faster than Latias and Latios and has a STAB SE move on them. It can switch into an un-boosted Dragon Pulse, or come in on a Recover / Wish / whatever and attempt to kill that way.

Latias and Latios are immune to Garchomp's Earthquake, are faster, and can OHKO it with either Dragon Pulse or Ice Beam (Dragon Pulse lets them get around Yache Berry). They can in turn be blocked somewhat by Garchomp. If it has a Choice Scarf, it can get them with Dragon Claw or Outrage, and if they are Modest, it can just be Jolly.

Latias and Latios are two of the best Manaphy counters. They are faster, resist its STAB attack, and have enough Special Defense to take an Ice Beam or two. They can then follow it up with a powerful Thunder / Thunderbolt.

Manaphy increases the power of rain teams. This helps remove one of Garchomp's things: Sand Veil. However, the increase of rain will also likely lead to an increase in Electric-types, which is a good thing for Garchomp.

The rise of Latias and Latios could mean a balancing increase of Heracross and Scizor, both of which take on Darkrai. Maybe it will also mean more Weavile. This makes life for Garchomp harder.

My point isn't that all of this is going to happen, but rather, something like it definitely will. I don't pretend to know all of the effects it will have.

However, Aldaron's question of just what "having a giant fuck of a mess and having no clue what to base decisions on because everything is completely out of order." means, because I'm a bit confused on that myself.

 

[Aldaron]

Jabba, stop implying I am stupid and I cannot understand your point.

I understand it full well and until you address all the obvious fallacies in your proposal I will continue to fight it.

Obviously I understand your proposal, how else do can I suggest the most basic flaw with it...assuming we have a proper guinea pig metagame?

Your avoidance of the issue is really sad.

Also, I never said you talked about a guinea pig metagame. I said obviously you are creating one by testing all the questionable ubers in that metagame. How hard is that to understand? The only one not understanding is you. I have asked you to clarify basic flaws in your proposal and you have done nothing except avoid the issue.

 

[gengod]

Aldaron, my problem with your proposal lies with one issue that Jabba brought up.

If you test Latias, Latios, Darkrai, Manaphy and Mew at the same time and the metagame breaks, there's no telling which Pokemon is to blame.

You say you don't understand break, but i'm sure you get the general idea of what he means, if you add all of these pokemon and we sense a problem with the metagame wheter it be mainly Manaphy or mainly Darkrai we simply can't tell which one of the is really to blame.

You brought up the point here

How can you assume that testing them individually will have the same result as testing them at the same time? And if Darkrai destroys the metagame with only it allowed, then all we can state is that it destroyed THAT metagame, not the metagame with all of them present.

that by testing these pokemon individually we could possibly run into problems where we can only say pokemon X might not be broken for one metagame with all of them included but could be broken in a metagame where only X is included.

This also works for the reverse. If we do find that there are problems with a certain pokemon, we can't simply ban it as it's removal could cause the others to have a similar effect and we would likely have to test the metagame with the removal of that pokemon, like how we are doing with Garchomp at the moment before we actually go about banning it, or rebanning it in this case.

Jabba, as far as your method is concerned, I don't find much wrong with it besides the amount of time it would take to finish, since for each pokemon test we will need at least 2 months of statistics to really be able say what route we are going to take with that specific pokemon. With Latios, Latias, Mew, Deoxys D, Manaphy and possibly Ho-oh that is a year we are looking at just to do STAGE 1, which is honestly too long.

I don't have any suggestions as to what comprimise we can come to or which alternate method can be used but i just wanted to make sure both sides know what they are really getting into with each proposal.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

If I understand Jabba's proposal correctly, I would also like to support it 100% like Jumpman16.

The "mess" that Jabba is referring to stems from the fact that we can't just change the face of the metagame by adding 5 ubers and then expect to get any results from it. There would be nothing to compare it to because the current OU metagame would be irrelevant in comparison. Aldaron's notion of a "guinea pig" is absurd and shows that he is still missing the entire point. If you add 5 ubers to the current OU metagame, the entire foundation would change to the point where it is unrecognizable. Any comparison between the current metagame and the one with 5 more ubers would not be valid. There would not be any way to decide if the game is better or worse compared to the current game, and there would be no way to tell which pokemon out of the 5 are responsible for that. I'm going back to something I said earlier, the "throw 5 more ubers in" argument is akin to just throwing 5 chemicals into a pot and hoping they dont explode. Jabba's proposal is methodical and would actually allow us to determine the effect of each pokemon, instead of the impact of 5 pokemon simultaneously. If Aldaron's proposal is used, we would only be able to tell that the 5 pokemon did/didnt break the game, not which ones did it individually. Consider the case where it is found that the 5 Ubers do break the game. We would then have to go back and decide which one(s) is/are the culprits by a series of rebannings and more tests. It is basically Jabba's proposal except too overwhelming at first, in reverse order, and without a series of checkpoints along the way for easy, relevant analysis.

We wouldn't be creating a guinea pig any more than the Deoxys or Wobbuffet tests already have in the past. It would be the same thing as those arguably successful tests, except 5 times and then with one more check to make sure it worked.

The Garchompless metagame isn't the metagame of choice for these tests, it is clear that Jabba wanted his testing system to be applied to whatever the current metagame is at the time of the start of the tests. Considering how the order of operations list turned out, there is a very good chance that Garchomp may not be around in OU to see these tests and assuming otherwise is ignoring most of the topic. Garchomp needs to be dealt with first because it is impacting OU right now.

Also, how can you just say "that is flawed" and that there are "obvious fallacies" when you cant even point them out, especially when you are asking for something that is going to destroy the game as we know it? Your proposal is using just as much theory as Jabba's is.

 

[Aldaron]

Let me restate for you two AGAIN exactly what fallacy I have pointed out.

You are assuming that the metagame that you find Darkrai to be broken in (whether with or without Garchomp) will not be different from a metagame with all of them, and therefore the result will be the same.

Also, let me repeat for like the third time why Jabba is talking about a guinea pig.

Both Jumpman and Jrrrrrrr have stated "if I understand it 100%" meaning obviously Jabba has done a poor job explaining his proposal because each believes he may not 100% understand it. The fact is that Jabba still has not absolutely clarified which of the following two scenarios he means. I still do not 100% know if Jabba wants to test Garchomp, and if Garchomp is found to be not uber to test Latios with Garchomp, and if Latios is not uber then test Manaphy with Latios and Garchomp. Note that as I will explain later this still has the concept of a "guinea pig," albeit it 5 or 6 different times. But I'll get to that later. The second option is that we only have one guinea pig metagame and that if Garchomp is not banned we do not test Latios with it, and if it is not banned that we do not test Manaphy with Latios or Garchomp. I think it is obvious why a guinea pig metagame is being defined for this option.


Now let me clarify to both of you as to why even if Jabba evidently expects me to assume he is talking about the first option that it still has a guinea pig. That first one has 5 or 6 guinea pigs, in fact. Because the bottom line is that the metagame that each uber will be tested in will not be the same metagame as the final result. If you agree that the metagame is a different one (and obviously I am not talking about adding Weedle type different, I am talking about adding a questionable uber type different and I really hope that you do not get pedantic with me though considering how adamant you two are in avoiding the issue you just might), then I do not see how you can claim you are not establishing a guinea pig lol

You are testing in a different metagame for results. That is pretty much the definition of guinea pig, because the bottom line is that you do not know what the final metagame will be. The only argument Jabba had for the validity of this claim was one that is most laughable to me. He actually stated that "none of the Pokemon are counters to one another."

Ok but I am sorry. This is by no means a passable support statement. For it to mean anything you would have to declare that teams require counters to effectively win in the metagame. Right, don't even start lol. The bottom line is that each will have some sort of a significant effect on the other, and we cannot with a straight face declare that this effect will be minimal.

Well, I guess Jabba and Jrrrrrrr can.

Also, I am ignoring Maniac's claim that we will not be able to find the problem. Jesus Christ, we are not morons. We can basically assume what the issue might be after testing for a while. I mean, for us to notice a problem we generally have to know what the issue is, right lol? I find it preposterous that you guys can claim we won't be able to pinpoint it. That is a claim with literally no sense. We found out Garchomp, didn't we?

Unless you also mean that "the metagame will go to shit" in which case please clarify for both Obi and I.

Also, Jrrrrrrr, don't give me this "Jabba's method is methodical" baloney. How is it methodical when it is declaring that no noticeable difference will be made in a metagame with all five ubers? That method may be "step wise" and may make "sense" but the bottom line is that it makes basically the ultimate fallacy you can make in Pokemon by assuming that adding a significant Pokemon will not alter the metagame.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.

 

[Jumpman16]

Let me restate for you two AGAIN exactly what fallacy I have pointed out.

You are assuming that the metagame that you find Darkrai to be broken in (whether with or without Garchomp) will not be different from a metagame with all of them, and therefore the result will be the same.

He has stated that a "Stage 2" would test the suspects that passed Stage 1, which by itself implies that he anticipates that it would be a different metagame. He's not assuming what you think he is. And besides, you yourself are assuming:

I 100% guarantee to you we can figure out issues in the metagame with all of them unbanned, and we can even pinpoint where the issue is.

Really? Besides the fact that any of us here could flat out tell you that this is wrong (we haven't been able to figure out the Garchomp issue with or without Wobby or DX-S in the metagame for like 7-8 months now), all you have done so far is tried to point out fallacies and flaws and "guinea pigs" in Jabba's proposal, instead of attempting to clear up this extreme prediction of yours. These two put together make it seem like you're arguing for the sake of arguing instead of telling us why your proposal is at the least any better, let alone a "100% guarantee".

Also, let me repeat for like the third time why Jabba is talking about a guinea pig.

Both Jumpman and Jrrrrrrr have stated "if I understand it 100%" meaning obviously Jabba has done a poor job explaining his proposal because each believes he may not 100% understand it.

No, it doesn't. To say "if I understand x correctly" is to be polite and unassuming, neither of which you have been in this thread. I understood Jabba's proposal about four sentences into his first post about it.

The fact is that Jabba still has not absolutely clarified which of the following two scenarios he means. I still do not 100% know if JabbaTheWise

Don't ever do something like this again or you will be removed from this forum. I don't know why you feel you have the right to be condescending when you appear to have no intention of explaining why your suggestions are any better for this community.

wants to test Garchomp, and if Garchomp is found to be not uber to test Latios with Garchomp, and if Latios is not uber then test Manaphy with Latios and Garchomp. Note that as I will explain later this still has the concept of a "guinea pig," albeit it 5 or 6 different times. But I'll get to that later. The second option is that we only have one guinea pig metagame and that if Garchomp is not banned we do not test Latios with it, and if it is not banned that we do not test Manaphy with Latios or Garchomp. I think it is obvious why a guinea pig metagame is being defined for this option.

You literally don't understand and this underlines it. If Garchomp is found to not be uber, the next step in Stage 1 would be to test Latios (or Latias) in the the metagame without any suspects, which right now is the current metagame minus Garchomp. Unless you want to clearly state that you feel that the current metagame without Garchomp has a suspect in it, be it DX-S or Lucario, there there is seriously no other problem with Jabba's proposal in itself.

Now let me clarify to both of you as to why even if Jabba evidently expects me to assume he is talking about the first option that it still has a guinea pig. That first one has 5 or 6 guinea pigs, in fact. Because the bottom line is that the metagame that each uber will be tested in will not be the same metagame as the final result. If you agree that the metagame is a different one (and obviously I am not talking about adding Weedle type different, I am talking about adding a questionable uber type different and I really hope that you do not get pedantic with me though considering how adamant you two are in avoiding the issue you just might), then I do not see how you can claim you are not establishing a guinea pig lol

You are testing in a different metagame for results. That is pretty much the definition of guinea pig, because the bottom line is that you do not know what the final metagame will be.

It is extremely clear to me that you have either completely glossed over the mention of Stage 2 or are ignoring it for some reason. Every suspect that by itself does not prove to break a suspect-less metagame would be tested together in Stage 2, and we would be much more prepared to at least know the cause of the "explosion" jrrrrr is hypothesizing if we threw all suspects in together simply because, if we can assume anything at all, we can assume that at least one of the suspects will be deemed uber in a Stage 1 test.

The only argument Jabba had for the validity of this claim was one that is most laughable to me. He actually stated that "none of the Pokemon are counters to one another."

Ok but I am sorry. This is by no means a passable support statement. For it to mean anything you would have to declare that teams require counters to effectively win in the metagame. Right, don't even start lol. The bottom line is that each will have some sort of a significant effect on the other, and we cannot with a straight face declare that this effect will be minimal.

Well, I guess Jabba and Jrrrrrrr can.

I agree with you, and so does Obi. My purposely uncertain theorymon++ quote a few days ago ("well Lati@s check Garchomp...") speaks to this, and I can't speak for Jabba or jrrrrr on this one...but it doesn't really matter because it has no bearing on the actual steps of his proposal.

Also, I am ignoring Maniac's claim that we will not be able to find the problem. Jesus Christ, we are not morons. We can basically assume what the issue might be after testing for a while. I mean, for us to notice a problem we generally have to know what the issue is, right lol? I find it preposterous that you guys can claim we won't be able to pinpoint it. That is a claim with literally no sense. We found out Garchomp, didn't we?

This is the second time in this post that you have stated "issue" in the singular. Why is it that you see to be implying that there would only be one issue, which is virtually to say that there's only one suspect that is too strong for a suspect-less metagame.

Unless you also mean that "the metagame will go to shit" in which case please clarify for both Obi and I.

Also, Jrrrrrrr, don't give me this "Jabba's method is methodical" baloney. How is it methodical when it is declaring that no noticeable difference will be made in a metagame with all five ubers? That method may be "step wise" and may make "sense" but the bottom line is that it makes basically the ultimate fallacy you can make in Pokemon by assuming that adding a significant Pokemon will not alter the metagame?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.

This speak more to your misunderstand or ignorance of Stage 2 than anything else.

Finally, if I were to offer an addendum to Jabba's proposal, it would be a Stage 3 where we add the suspect(s) banned in Stage 1 to the successful, suspect-free metagame we arrive at following the completion of Stage 2. We'd do this just to confirm that this suspect does indeed break the true metagame, where "true" means one without suspects, which we will have determined through the successful completion of Stages 1 and 2. I actually think this is a necessary step, and it address the very valid possibility that, should Garchomp fail Stage 1 but Lati@s pass Stage 2, that Garchomp may indeed not overpower the true metagame which again is one where there are no suspects, which means Lati@s don't break it by themselves so it would stand to reason that they would probably not be more powerful with Garchomp back in the mix.

 

[Ancien Régime]

I support the testing of the ubers at once ONLY because of the time involved - at the very least, with the bare minimum of 1 month per test, we're looking at 6 months to finish testing and acquire statistics. At the very least. So you're saying we need 6 months to truly settle the metagame? If that's true, is doing all that testing even worth it?

Anyway, I never did post an OoO so here I go.

1: Garchomp - Because of its high rate of usage, its power and the controversy it generates, its imo the highest priority.
2: UU Tiers - I feel that, especially since we plan to have UU in the Smogon Tour for the time being, we must get UU settled.
3: Arceus - Again, since we plan to include Ubers in the Smogon Tour, we shoud determine the status of Arceus.
4: Lati@s - I don't think the status of Lati@s is that high of a priority; I feel that OU doesn't *need* Lati@s at the time being; it's more of a "luxury" if anything.
5: Mew - Same reasoning as the others - there's not an immediate need.
6: Manaphy - Same reasoning as the others - no immediate need.
7: Darkrai - Essentially the same reasoning as the others - is there any specific purpose of testing Darkrai, other than for the sake of testing - does OU *need* Darkrai?
8: Evasion Clause - I feel that testing this is low priority - we get along just fine without Evasion,
9: Species Clause - Since this has been such an integral part of competitive pokemon for a long time, I feel that this is something that should be tested last.
10: OHKO Clause - Again, there's very little pressure or need to test OHKOs.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Also, Jrrrrrrr, don't give me this "Jabba's method is methodical" baloney. How is it methodical when it is declaring that no noticeable difference will be made in a metagame with all five ubers? That method may be "step wise" and may make "sense" but the bottom line is that it makes basically the ultimate fallacy you can make in Pokemon by assuming that adding a significant Pokemon will not alter the metagame.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.

Adding a significant pokemon will not alter the metagame? How would adding FIVE significant pokemon not alter the metagame? If that were really "the ultimate fallacy", then how can we possibly accept the Deoxys and Wobbuffet tests that have already been accepted as legitimate?

Uhhh...also, the main criticism of the part of your post where you were talking to me directly:

Also, Jrrrrrrr, don't give me this "Jabba's method is methodical" baloney.

one sentence later...

That method may be "step wise" and may make "sense"

Definitions of methodical on the Web:

• [SIZE=-1]characterized by method and orderliness; "a methodical scholar" [/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
• in an organized manner
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/methodical
• deliberate and regular in a methodical manner
  encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861717826/systematic.html

..I'm not really sure where your issue with my statement lies, but it certainly wasn't with my correct choice of words. Please stop talking down to every person that disagrees with you. Maybe you could try addressing the arguments we are actually making instead of attacking us directly.

I support the testing of the ubers at once ONLY because of the time involved - at the very least, with the bare minimum of 1 month per test, we're looking at 6 months to finish testing and acquire statistics. At the very least. So you're saying we need 6 months to truly settle the metagame? If that's true, is doing all that testing even worth it?

As much as I know that Jabba's method is going to take a while, I feel that this is worth doing right, the first time. If there is a more efficient way of doing things that can produce the same results as accurately as Jabba's does, I would be all for it...but at the moment I just don't see it. When we consider that we would be adding FIVE uber pokemon into OU, we can see that it is obviously going to take a while to settle things down. This is exactly why I am advocating a slower, methodical method of doing things instead of just throwing them all in together.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Finally, if I were to offer an addendum to Jabba's proposal, it would be a Stage 3 where we add the suspect(s) banned in Stage 1 to the successful, suspect-free metagame we arrive at following the completion of Stage 2. We'd do this just to confirm that this suspect does indeed break the true metagame, where "true" means one without suspects, which we will have determined through the successful completion of Stages 1 and 2.

Ah that's perfect. I had been thinking of one of the points Obi brought up: Lati@s actually counters Manaphy. I don't know how I overlooked something so obvious. So I had been thinking of a method to deal with this problem. This works perfectly. Thanks.

 

[Yagami Light]

Just posting to say that I fully agree with Jabba's proposal, it may take a while, but it sure seems worth it. Just a few questions that I'd like clarified:

Are we going to be testing Ho-oh and Deoxys-D as well, then? Just everything possibly questionable?

Where do the clauses and Stealth Rock fit in all of this? I didn't see particular mention of them, so I'd just like that clarified.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Don't forget Lugia!

 

[Brawley]

Agreeing fully with Jabba (He's always right :p) and wondering the same things as Light! Also I dont think we need a whole month to test each poke, isnt two weeks enough?

 

[Jumpman16]

It will probably vary a little bit from poke to poke if Garchomp is any indication. Lati@s will probably not be very conclusive even after two weeks.

Don't forget Lugia!

This is the first time anyone's mentioning Lugia as a suspect, though even if you're kidding it's interesting to note that Lugia is the only 100% counter to Garchomp in the game! (For some numbers, 110 Base Speed is the main reason, as its Flying-Type, Recover, Reflect, Roost, 106 Base HP and 130 Base Defensive let it switch into Jolly Chomp and act first every time, while taking 35-42% from SDed Outrage under Reflect and 46% max from Adamant Scarf Chomp, the only variant that can at all begin to threaten it "with Stealth Rock support")