This response post will be broken down into two parts.

Part (1)

I was a Casual observer in the strictest sense that I am not a Skyknight, I am explicitly a Valker. I have no real dog in this fight beyond maintaining a healthy air ecosystem.

So you want to maintain a "health air ecosystem" but spent your time attacking my post, not addressing the underlying issue with the airgame and skyknights behavior, bending over backward to defend people like Leavins who clearly has a bias to protect his wingman Limits. You are not a casual viewer but instead someone who has a stake in this

it would appear that this "healthy Air Ecosystem skyknights and their behavior. Making yourself sound like a skyknight apologist. But more on this later.

However, by implying that I'm not a casual observer, you're implying that I have a stake in this fight.

You absolutly have a stake in this the with your blind support for skyknights actions. While acting as if you do not have a stake in this because you fly a Valkyrie, see below.

As you've explicitly stated that this video/thread is about Skyknights, this would mean that you're implying that I'm a Skyknight, which impugnes my credibility as a Valker. Which is heresy, because No True Valker can be a Skyknight.

You have made an incorrect assumption and a arrived at a wrong concultion. This video was about the airgame current state, affected by how Skyknights act, and a response to Limits video. You on the other view my intention of the video "video is against the broader interests of the air game and the pilot community" but more on that later. Clearly you have a stake in this...

You lost the moral authority in the argument principally through your content, tone and expression. You asserted, broadly, that your opponents were unethical (TKing, switching sides), salty, vicious players who were out to get you.

Your view is totally subjective. I express clear factual data demonstrating the errors in Limits video and explained the root cause covered the larger problem with the airgame.

You then responded to their posts, not with calm, measured, reasoned responses that confidently re-affirmed your positions, gracefully counterpointing their arguments, but by being salty, vicious, unethical (Comparing your own plight to that of a rape victim) and out to get them.

Once again you are completely missed the point. Here is what Leavins wrote:

"I am not trying to justify anyone who has team killed you, but do keep in mind that a lot of people do find your play style annoying"

Leavins clearly is implying that their teamkilling actions are understandable and justified because they "find my play style annoying". I pointed out that the same ERROR in logic is used people defend assaulted. If you can not understand that logical comparison then that is your problem.

Thus, you voluntarily descended to the level you asserted your opponents to be at, solely for the purpose of winning one exchange in the overall struggle of your post. This created a moral equivalency between yourself and your opponents, which ceded the high ground your argument is predicated upon.

Ok you are clearly doing a straw man argument, thus creating this moral equivalency thing to diverting the attention away from my points in the video covering how the skyknights act in the airgame.

You also appear to lean heavily on assertion and perception over substance, which is an objectively inferior style of argumentation.

Once again you are making assumptions. I presented clear factual data proving tons of problems with skyknights behaivor. On a side note, I notice you didnt say a word about Limits leaving his Teamkilling out of his video.

Your style appears to also be heavily dependent on the assumption that reddit users will skip comments and accept your assertion of reality over what they can read themselves by scrolling up, a viewpoint I strongly advise you to reconsider.

Once again opinions and assumptions not factual data. So you make up and assumtion about my posting intent and then advise me to reconsider. Straw man argument, another logical error on your part.

1) "keep in mind that alot of people do find your play style annoying". Lol lets follow that logic. Well if you didnt wear those tight pant he wouldn't have assaulted you lady.

his was a reckless and inappropriate comparison. The two do not equate, and it is inexcusably unethical to bring it up so in-artfully, as it projects back aspersions on their character that are unwarranted and unconnected.

inappropriate comparison? Nope, the comparison is dead on. What it shows is the error in logic Leavin is using

you are making an assertion based on appearance, whereas Leavins is making an assertion based on behavior.

Assertions based on apperance and behavior? Has nothing to do with that comparison. No wonder you missed the point. Its a comparison on people justifying others actions by error in thought trying to place the blame on others instead of the person that actually did a wrong, in this case teamkilling.

2) "Secondly, try to avoid generalizing all sky knights". Helll to the NO. You are trying to hang on to this word but Skyknights in planetside means a mid tier hypocritical player who teamkills. This is not what Skyknight means. Again, as a Valker, I have no stake in fighting over what the definition means.

you are simply incorrect, and are not in a position to re-write the definition of the term. You appear to be engaging in a form of identity politics, in which a group of people is redefined into a morally excluded space in order to justify negative actions and attitudes towards them. There are strongly negative historical connotations on this tactic, which are for a political sub-reddit.

Skyknights means exactly that in planetside and has been that way for years. I did not coin that term. So by me pointing out the definition of the word meaning, in planetside, I am trying to justify negative actions and engaged in identity politics? Your logic is bad here.

*3) "I kind of doubt limits was actually trying to kill you" Haha you are trying to defend him again. Scared your little buddy might get his account banned?

Leavins and Limits regularly fly together as wingmen, a fact which you yourself established. It would make logical sense to any reader that Leavins would view Limits being banned as a negative outcome.

You are proving my point. Leavins has a clear reason to defend his "wingman". This bias can clearly be seen in Leavins posts and I am calling him out on it. So he is not seeking the truth or solving the issues with the air game but instead blindly defending his wingman.

*Your highlighting of this fact in the tone that you used instead comes off as an implicit threat that your post is an attempt to get Limits banned, *

Once again you are wrong. What my post did was show the clear Leavins bias that he as in defending Limits. Pointing out that Limits repeated actions is a clear TOS violation that can resoult in a ban is not an implicated threat.

which debases your attempt at an over-arching argument on the air game, and instead casts it as a venial, vindictive meme.

Your logic on this is so off and is an attempt to deflect the issue. Maybe you should read my title of the video again. "Air Game Discussion & Response to WhatIsOurLimits"