Go start such a positive discussion about VGC then, or one if the other various things that if you dare mention in a positive light results in an instant ban, even if there is zero trolling in the post.

There are a bunch of subjects that if you do not sing and dance to exactly how they want it result in a ban, no matter how well constucted a discussion if the mood of the post if not in line with exactly what they want, ban.  Meant to be a discussion forum but free speech is banned if it doesn't show what they want in a positive light.

If I had any interest at all in this tussle, I'd have no compunction in doing so - provided I was properly informed. None at all. But I haven't.

However, you've shown me that defending GAF here is pretty pointless as well. So I'll stop doing that.

Yes it's a very childish hatred and rivalry.  I don't know who's immediate fault it is but it's a very silly then.

Considering I can't post on that thread, I would like to say the dailmydrive guy who responded to ioi's post committed a few fallacies.  Here's what he said:

Holy shit @ oioio. If anyone challenges him they're automatically David Riley. Anogram my ass. The word is that Fade is a vgczzz company. Denying it and saying you bought a stake in it is another lie.

 Why is it that everyone who takes you to task is an automatic NPD or gfk employee, or whatever?

You are the most paranoid, ignorant, sad person in the world.

First of all he responded to his argument by denouncing it simply because ioi was stating it.  That's a red herring fallacy as it seeks to move away from the actual debate rather than actually debating it.  Secondly it's an ad hominem fallacy as he made it more about the person posting it rather than the actual content.  Both fallacies make his entire argument false.  But he made more.

Second he claims what he was saying was a lie.  But given he provided no proof he committed the negative-proof fallacy.  Just because you state something and feel you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true or not.  Simply a fallacious argument and should be denoted as such.  The last two sentences are more cases of ad hominem, red herring, and now a hasty generalization fallacy.  Obviously derailing the argument and making it personal but he also assumes based on something in the past that this argument he is being paranoid, ignorant and sad.

In entirerty there were obviously quite a few fallacies.  The main one is a straw man and a red herring as obviously it had nothing to do with what ioi said nor was it representative of what he said.  But of course throw the ad hominem, hasty generalization, and negative-proof fallacy and you got an extremely fallacious argument.  However he also committed the most common.  He states if someone challenges ioi they are such and such.  But then he goes on to say that ioi is paranoid, ignorant, and sad person after he was challenged by ioi.  Meaning it's bad when someone is accused they throw out denouncing terms but he here got accused and then started to denounce ioi's argument.  What is that guys?  Obviously a logical contradiction.  Something can't both be the case and not the case at the same time in the same respect.

To sum it up the argument made absolutely no sense and it was atrocious that so many fallacious things could be said in such a small selection of words.  I really do wish I could say it directly too him but I don't have the means to.  But if anyone wants to PM it to him, well you could even sign my name.  Common sense and logic is something this guy lacks and it is an embarrassment to humanity that any of us had to witness such an argument. 

And yes that is what you call ownage. 

If I had any interest at all in this tussle, I'd have no compunction in doing so - provided I was properly informed. None at all. But I haven't.

However, you've shown me that defending GAF here is pretty pointless as well. So I'll stop doing that.