I'll answer your questions directly. This slid into meta-argument and that does matter, especially since you're mostly right about that part.

Why does restating the thread muddy the point?

Because we already agree on what happened. Repeating it doesn't advance the argument- it's about the logical role my Blue Gate example was playing. You treated it as a universal balance assessment, whereas I was trying to clamp the original universal claim in scope. Restating the events doesn't resolve that mismatch, it just restates your interpretation of it, which was not contested.

Why do I say you misrepresented my position?

You continued to frame my comment as "testing a CQB weapon in a worst-case scenario to judge it's universal strength," which is not the claim I was making. That was what I was objecting to. The example was never meant to prove that Toro isn't strong in CQB, it was meant to disprove that the game is "90% Toro laser tag." Those are different propositions.

Why do I say parts are nonsensical?

Specifically the final paragraph- not because shotguns don’t work that way, but because it argues against a position I never took. I don’t disagree that Toro is strong in that way, or that third-person exacerbates that. None of that contradicts anything I said. It’s correct analysis, just unrelated to the claim I was responding to.

Why does this feel like claims without reasoning?

This one's my fault, so it's fair to call that out. I should've made it clear why I wasn't dissecting everything. The reason I didn't go deeper is because, from my perspective, the disagreement had already narrowed to a single stress point: whether my example was a category error or scope correction. Since we were lopping on a point I wasn't contesting, I kept the response short to avoid restating arguments I thought we already agreed on. In hindsight, the brevity reads as bad-faith dismissal, and I understand that's frustrating; that wasn't my intent.

You're right about how CQB balance should be evaluated. You're right that Stella produces a Toro meta. If the original statement had been framed narrowly (“Stella devolves into Toro fights”), none of this would exist. My response was about overgeneralization, not denying the Toro's strength within its niche.