You contradict yourself in your part here.You first go off on a tangent about what we can call broken, but then say that not all broken pokemon are bad for the metagame. You then state how broken pokemon invariably significantly harm the metagame, directly contradicting your previous point. Which one is it?
Also, you can't call just anything broken (lol at Dragonite being broken), but there's not even a debate about that. Whether or not something is broken is not a philosophical question, it's a question of how powerful it is in relation to the rest of the metagame, which is why Dragonite isn't broken.
You misunderstand me because I didnt state my own personal views on a top pokemon. The metagame revolves around the top pokemon and changes the face of that tier to represent them. In this way yes a pokemon can be deemed broken. However, A pokemon can only really be deemed broken if it negatively impacts the metagame. It's like last gen with Latias and Salamence. With those two the metagame was mainly a Dragon/Steel Metagame and was rather centralized. Once those two were banned more pokemon came into the metagame from UU and bottom OUs started to be used more. More pokemon came to make the face of the new Top threat Heatran. The metagame became more F/W/G oriented and more pokemon became viable.
The "Face" of the metagame are the major pokemon in said metagame. When a major pokemon is banned the face changes because new threats present themselves and the metagame inevitably becomes better for it. I hope that clears things up a little bit.
You also misunderstood me about Dragonite as I was using that as an example of a pokemon that isn't broken. Dragonite's mixed set is a major wallbreaker which gives it an advantage against stall teams. However, just because Dragonite has an advantage in this aspect doesn't mean that it's broken. I was using this as an example of why Valkyries' statement seemed invalid to me.