Hence my "kinda" in the sentence, as it does suggest that you think it's Inno's motivation, but, yes, if you are not willing to spell out your stance and expect me to simply be aware of unmentioned, in the present, information, it is difficult to have any sort of actual argument on the topic, instead turning the discussion into nitpicking about perspective and absent intelligence. "Ad hominem" is probably the fallacy I should have accused, but I do believe that you are deflecting from the main discourse in order to undermine my assertions.
Well, Ive said repeatedly I don't "kinda think" anything specific about Inno's motivations other than they are financial.
In case you need a better understanding of ad hominem attacks, here are a couple of examples:
swear you haven't read a word
Manufacturing a fault in another poster's comprehension of the discussion.
claiming that other players don't have to play the same way you do, when they do
Claiming without supporting evidence that alternate strategies (which work for lots of people, but don't support your idea) are invalid.
It appears that you can contradict yourself just fine without my help. *nods sagely
Twisting another poster's posts (not mine) which suggest multiple alternate strategies which can be successful, but which do not contradict each other, into a claim that they are somehow contradictory, while implying some elevated awareness on your part without supporting evidence.
while the dissenters argue for supposed equity of balance, their main boast is how easy the current model is? Curious, that.
Turning other commenters' examples about why they disagree with your position into "boasts"
for the sake of a bit of shared reality
subtle attack on another commenter's (not mine) grasp of reality which belittled their argument.
but your strawman tactics are quite amusing
which you later acknowledge wasn't a strawman attack, but addressing your actual OP rather than a random tangent, and using it to imply that my points are laughable.
you have yet to posit your own theories to be scrutinize, merely attacking my own assumption by stating I am wrong
[despite the fact that you have previously read, liked, and/or commented on some of them in the past]
Oh wait, you kinda have, in the insistence that Inno is
As above, claiming I asserted something I never asserted in order to use that as evidence I am wrong.
Perhaps you'd care to throw out a third random accusation of fallacial reasoning to see if you can make this one stick?