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.