I deliberately avoided using the words "uncompetitive" and "broken" because I really don't want to participate in an argument of semantics. I wasn't really addressing the discussions in the past few pages in particular; it was more in response to some arguments made over the past few weeks. There are quite a few posts in this thread that used OU-esque logic, but I am guessing close to none of those such posters follow this thread much anymore anyways.
I don't see uncompetitiveness as a black and white classification. Some aspects of the game are more competitive than others. My point was that I don't believe Mega Gengar to be uncompetitive enough to warrant a ban, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm biased toward not banning things from Ubers. The metagame is playable and interesting enough as it is, and even if that isn't good enough for you, it is good enough for me. For your criteria of uncompetitiveness of Gengarite, there is zero RNG involved with Shadow Tag, is fairly easily abusable (certainly to the point where the top 20 or 30 players could use Gengar more or less flawlessly), and sure it may break a crucial aspect of the game (switching) sometimes. However, switching is undeniably an important mechanic of the game, but so is limiting your opponent's options. So by your system, I would say that Mega Gengar is ~1.5/3 uncompetitive if you are looking for a number or something. For comparison, OHKO moves fall somewhere between 2/3 and 3/3 on your scale, and I stand by my previous vote to not retain the OHKO Clause.
Hopefully that answers your questions somewhat.
And yet you used other buzzwords that actually don't apply to the discussion. And what you call semantics is actually crucial to this suspect, as this is a very serious decision and should
not be taken without considerable thought put into your stance and your reasoning for that stance. That's why I asked for clarification, because there needs to be more thought put into it than just "I feel this isn't a problem". And wait, you would vote to not retain the OHKO Clause? That means you want OHKO moves unbanned. Is that what you meant?
You are on thin ground trying to argue this point. No legitimate move or ability ever breaks a game mechanic. I'll run with ignore/remove for arguments sake here.
Priority completely ignores the speed stat, which is a mechanic. Pursuit ignores the priority given to switching out. Taunt removes the action certain moves. You can't have your cake and eat it here. Either nothing "breaks" a game mechanic, or my examples are valid as they ignore or remove one.
I suspect you're going to argue this further, but I really am not interested in getting into a semantics debate over what ignore/remove is defined as in this situation.
Sleep inducing moves are not banned in Ubers. This is because its an accepted part of the game, just like shadow tag should be. People perceive shadow tag in a negative manner because they don't like it and on gengar it is ridiculously strong. But the whole point of this ban supposedly isn't about gengarite being broken/overpowered, it's about gengarite being "uncompetitive".
tl;dr your system doesn't work, you've just tried to insert something which looks good and fits your own argument.
I'll point out we actually agree on this ultimately. The difference is you are trying to make a weird, choppy argument which focuses on shoe-horning gengarite into being uncompetitive (which mainly relies on the fact that it is broken) and therefore banning it. My argument is that gengarite is just simply so broken and so good that it should probably be banned for the sake of the metagame, but gengarite itself isn't uncompetitive, unless uncompetitive is defined as "so good that it is harmful to game balance". That would be fine, except in the context of banning, "uncompetitive" is associated with reducing things down to pure luck/RNG - that is not true in this case.
I'm annoyed because I want this ban to be realised for the right reasons (saying "shadow tag is luck based" is not the right reason). Ultimately, it doesn't really matter because everyone who has played the meta knows mega gengar is cancer and needs to go.
Priority doesn't ignore the speed stat. If it did, then when two pokemon used moves of equal priority (this includes +0 priority moves, which are the vast majority of moves in the game, by the way), then it would be decided at random which moves first. Priority and Speed are both part of the mechanic that decides which pokemon moves first in a given turn. Priority is the first, broad decider, but in the case where priority is equal, Speed is a much more specific decider, and in the case where even Speed cannot decide the game just goes with RNG at that point, as while you could continue to add more and more sub-deciders, there will always be situations where things are tied and keeping track of more and more things would just be excessively complicated. Priority and Speed are a nice mix, as it allows them to create ways for pokemon to compensate for stat spreads (increased priority moves) while still having a general decider that works in most situations (speed).
Pursuit doesn't ignore the priority of Switching, it simply has higher priority than Switching. The fact that it changes priority doesn't necessarily mean it breaks the mechanic either.
Taunt removing actions is like trapping moves such as Block or Whirlpool or *insert other trapping move here*. Theoretically it would fall under C. But one catagory alone isn't enough to be uncompetitive, and Taunt is not easily abusable (as it does not immediately activate upon switching in, regardless of what the opponent does, and requires a turn every single time, as well as being subjected to priority and speed), and Taunt obviously doesn't involve RNG. Therefore, it does not fall under A or B, and is not uncompetitive.
Sleep inducing moves are not banned, but they
are limited. If Shadow Tag only worked once in the entire match, then it'd be comparable to how Sleep is now, but that's not how Shadow Tag works. For that matter, I, and nobody who posted seriously in this thread ever claimed that Shadow Tag is luck based, because it's not. The only "luck" is involved in double switching to try and avoid Shadow Tag, but that's not really "luck" as it is a player deciding switching like that is less detrimental overall than letting the pokemon they just switched in be trapped by Shadow Tag.
My argument being "weird [and] choppy" is because I'm breaking this down as much as I can to analyze it from multiple angles and to make sure that people understand why I came to the conclusion I did. As I said earlier in this post, this suspect is incredibly important and shouldn't be decided without serious thought.
I agreed with
9 Tales of Ninetales, in that people posting here (especially if they have reqs and plan to vote) should be giving the suspect considerable thought, provide reasoning and evidence if necessary, and elaborate in detail on how they reached their decision of ban or no ban. Especially given that it could result in the first banning of a pokemon in Ubers, it should be taken with extra special care.
On the subject of the slippery slope though, even if a precedent is set by this, at the end of the day people just calling for stuff to be banned without proper reason and support (especially given that
just being broken isn't enough to ban something in Ubers) wouldn't affect anything. It'd just be people whining, like people are wont to do. It's not like the Ubers council would seriously consider people that go "omg GeoXern is cancerous ban this BS I don't want to play with this shit".