[saurik]

Look, claiming I made an ad hominem attack means that I said "X is bad because X was made by person Y and Y is bad". I did not do that: I stated first a concrete (yet highly summarized reason) why I felt that X was bad (specifically regarding incentive changing). I then also explained the reason behind the project (which is a property of X, not of Y), which I have multiple sources close to the project (including you) backing up (so it isn't like I'm lying or something: this isn't like someone claiming a study is flawed because the author is biased <- instead, I'm more like someone showing a study is flawed because the author actually stated they did the study for biased reasons). If you are going to throw around logical fallacies as weapons, as least know what they mean :(. (I will now provide more responses, but separately, as I felt the need to get this out more quickly as it was such a slap and people might not pay enough attention to realize it was wrong ;P.)

(Also, on the last point about when you sent the e-mail, which is the closest you can get in my comments to "ad hominem" and to me was a defense against why I wasn't more prepared for this: you were more than willing to get involved in a "synchronous conversation" with me at the time, which would have taken even longer and been even more difficult ;P.)