2. Straw-man argument.

That's not a strawman. That's his argument.
He's objecting to the introduction of a scouting ability on the basis of scouts not being very good at, and/or adequately rewarded for, scouting.

Nooo - he's pointing out that neither you nor anyone else should make narrow assumptions about how the users of a particular dropsuit should play purely based on the name of that dropsuit.

So, either you're failing to understand what he was writing, or you're misrepresenting his opinion on purpose and arguing against the opinion you're claiming he has (ie. making a strawman argument).

While I agree that Scouts sharing the Intel gained from their scan would give Scouts a more defined role, I do not agree that it is a buff for Scouts.

You're ranting & hypocritical now. I'm not wasting my time here.

The key distinction here is that I am not telling people how to use their suits.
I am saying that using a scout for something other than scouting is not a sound basis for objecting to making scouts better at scouting.
Is that a distinction you can grasp? That there is a difference between building a suit to fit a role, and what someone does with that suit afterwards?
Your objection is no better than the CalLogis who complained they could no longer fit Duvolles after the nerf. It isn't a valid objection.

Ahh I should've read the rest of the comments before giving up with you; I can't let this one go.

First of all, nice dodge. You didn't respond to anything he said but instead just reasserted another position. There is no main distinction between our arguments because they are opposite. They're not the same with a "main distinction" making them different. You're in favor of a change to the current suit setup that would negatively effect an extremely common (arguably the only effective) way to run the suit. Before you disagree with this, take into account the many scout users that have agreed that this is not a positive change to the suit because it it detrimental to their current strategy. So while I and many other scouts are opposed to this not yet implemented change, you are for it. Who then is trying to limit the ways that a suit can be used? Don't pretend like me being opposed to something that isn't currently in the game somehow means that I'm saying "the suit can't be used this way" when it's not even possible to run it that way.

You're ignoring the fact that this change would change the way the suit could be used and not just adding to it a defined role. It destroys more roles than it adds. It turns this suit into an active scanner at best. This is plenty of reason for objection. This suit is hardly usable as is and would make it even more worthless than it is now if it couldn't be used in the one way people have made it effective. I'm ok with the suggestion to give them marking capabilities as previously stated somewhere above (I apologize, I can't remember who suggested it). This makes the suit have an extra ability that is "scout-like" without destroying the current play styles people use. The key difference here is that it makes the suit good for scouting without making it an active scanner. Saying my basis for objection is just because I don't use the suit for scouting is just ridiculous and no one else reading these posts could possibly agree.

The CalLogi analogy is invalid because CalLogis took advantage of existing exploits to become OP. CCP then nerfed them. That's what happened. There wasn't an effort to make them more Logi-like. It was simply to make them less powerful in every way. People who ran pure Logi roles with the suit were also nerfed. Comparing the objection of those exploiting the CalLogi suits because they were not able to run them as OP assault suits to the objection to a suggestion that is meant to "buff" the current scout suit because it really nerfs it in more ways than it buffs is incredibly absurd. You're just trying to draw a connection between people agreeing with the CalLogi nerd and people agreeing with the shared vision because it's so easy to agree to nerf something obviously OP when really the two situations are nothing alike.

[
Still ranting. If you can't make your point simply, you don't have one to make. This isn't quantum mechanics.
TL;DR

My points started simple but your inability to understand them or realize your own logical fallacies required me to expand on the basics and individual arguments. It's difficult to by concise when the person you're arguing with leaves issues open/misdirects the conversion/builds and army of straw men. Being too lazy to read my responses to your claims, labeling them as rants, and then somehow dismissing them tells me that you have no way to refute what I or anyone else is saying.

I've answered anybody else. Just not you.

You're answering me now. You answered me before. Our back and forth posts probably make up most of this thread. If you can't address any points in the posts or can't refute them then just let me know.

These are responses, not answers. That's another one of those distinctions you keep missing.

These are responses, not answers. That's another one of those distinctions you keep missing.

If you're seeing a distinction between the "answers" you've given everyone else and the "responses" you've been handing out then I think you've missed the distinction between "refute" and "answer".

If you're seeing a distinction between the "answers" you've given everyone else and the "responses" you've been handing out then I think you've missed the distinction between "refute" and "answer".

That would be begging the question.

Didn't think so considering my post was a conditional statement hence the "if" and so I'm not assuming the hypothesis to be true as would be needed to be begging the question.

No no, it's still begging the question.

Nuh uh